Standing Committee A

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

Clause 5 - RSS: revision

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 125, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 20, at end insert 
 'within five years of publication of the previous RSS, or sooner'.—[Matthew Green.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made

Alan Hurst: Order. This morning, the Committee was discussing amendment No. 125 to clause 5, and the Minister was intervening on the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) when the Committee adjourned. I should advise the Committee that once the hon. Gentleman has completed his remarks, we will consider a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee. I call the Minister to complete his intervention.

Keith Hill: I thank you, Mr. Hurst. The caveat is that the periods of revision will clearly depend on local circumstances.

Matthew Green: In the light of the Minister's intervention, we have probably taken the matter as far as needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Hurst: Copies of the Programming Sub-Committee's resolution are in the Room. I ask the Minister to move the motion.

Keith Hill: I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee [14th October] be amended, by leaving out from the second occurrence of 'New Schedules' in paragraph 2, and inserting 'Clause 5, Clause 2, Clause 40, Clause 46, Clauses 6 to 11, Clause 15, Clauses 19 to 36, Clauses 44 and 45, Clauses 47 to 53, Clauses 56 to 72, Clauses 79 to 90, Schedules 2 to 6, Clause 1, Clauses 3 and 4, Clauses 12 to 14, Clauses 16 to 18, Clauses 37 to 39, Clauses 41 to 43, Clauses 54 and 55, Clauses 73 to 78, Schedule 1, and the remaining proceedings on the Bill'. 
 That the Order of the Committee [14th October] be further amended, at the end, by leaving out '5.15 pm on Thursday 23rd October' and inserting '7.30 pm on Thursday 23rd October'.
 I draw the Committee's attention to a number of facts. We have had 17 hours of debate to date, and under the terms of the motion we have a further five hours to come. So far, 35 per cent. of the time, or just under six hours, has been spent on Government new clauses; and 65 per cent. of the time, or 11 hours, has been devoted to Opposition new clauses. That seems to be a fair treatment of the Opposition's interests. 
 The Government have shown considerable restraint. We have been guided almost entirely in the emphasis given to debates by the Opposition—and not 
 more so than with new clause 49, on which we spent two and a half hours. In other words, we effectively spent two and half hours dealing with part 2 of the Bill. 
 We have already discussed 27 Government new clauses, 30 Government amendments, three new schedules, 20 Opposition new clauses and 18 Opposition amendments, and we have had seven clause stand part debates. It seems to me that proper progress has been made on the Bill. I believe that we have the prospect of further proper consideration. I ought to point that, as we promised, we published the Government amendments well in advance. In addition, as I observed earlier today, we have made every effort to publish the maximum number of planning policy statements and regulations in draft. 
 We have so far sat for an additional three hours and 18 minutes beyond our normal sitting time of five hours a day. The Committee will be aware that, on Tuesday, we were willing to go on for a further 47 minutes, but that we accommodated the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). We have been extremely fair, and it was not the Government who were taking an excessive amount of the Committee's time. 
 We have always been willing to continue the debate. We have remaining before us 49 clauses with amendments, nine of which are in part 2, and we have effectively had a Second Reading debate on new clause 49. A further 18 of those new clauses fall in parts of the Bill that were discussed by the earlier Standing Committee. Although we have always made it clear that the completion date was not movable, we have always been emphatic about our willingness to be flexible. Indeed, at our first sitting, I spoke of 
''my willingness to be as flexible as possible''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 October 2003; c. 7.]
 We would have been very happy to yield to an Opposition request for an extra sitting on Wednesdays, but that was not forthcoming. The usual channels have been unusually open, and we have regularly checked on how the Opposition considered the Committee to be progressing. At no time has there been any request for consideration of a Wednesday sitting. In all circumstances, the Government have gone out of their way to accommodate the Opposition. It has been a good Committee so far. Through the motion, we have expressed out willingness to sit for another two and a quarter hours. If we add up all the hours, we will have had an extra day's sitting by the end of the day.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We still need to put one or two things on the record, but we appreciate the flexibility that the Government have shown within the constraints of the motion. I am personally grateful to the Government and the usual channels for allowing the sitting to finish early on Tuesday, which accommodated me. The Minister's statement was slightly inaccurate. As I recall, we were due to have a vote at 6.25 pm, but we finished at 6.10 pm—15 minutes early rather than 37 minutes early: a slight difference.
 We have made it consistently clear from the outset that eight sittings would not be enough, given the amount of new material that the Government are inserting into the Bill and the number of issues that remain from our deliberations in January. I said so on 9 June, as I mentioned this morning when the motion was debated, and at the beginning of this sitting, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said the same in subsequent business questions. I am glad that the Government, having steadfastly refused to consider any of our amendments in January, have now made some concessions in relation to one or two matters. I hope that they will make some more this afternoon. Indeed, I eagerly anticipate that they will as that would be a good thing. 
 These matters need to be fully negotiated. I accept the Minister's assertion that 35 per cent.—six hours—of the Committee's time has been spent on Government matters and that 65 per cent.—11 hours—has been spent on Opposition and other matters relating to Government new clauses and amendments. It is quite proper that a planning Bill that touches so many constituency cases should allow adequate time not only for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen but for Back Benchers, who have initiated some extremely useful debates and new clauses. 
 Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who found a consensus of opinion among Government Back Benchers in some of the debates that he initiated. Some of the Committee's time has therefore been very usefully spent, given the importance of any debate on planning. I do not know how many letters other Members receive from constituents about planning, but probably nearly half my constituency correspondence is about planning one way or another. I admit that I live in the Cotswolds in a very sensitive planning area, but it is unsurprising that colleagues want to raise such matters. 
 I accept that the time allowed has been prolonged, for which I am very grateful to the Government. As the Minister says, an extra sitting gives us an extra day, but I still do not believe that nine sittings are enough. As I said at the outset, 12 would have been about right. I hope that we will have adequate time on Report to deal with the outstanding matters. The Government tell us that the Report stage will be held after the Queen's Speech, and I hope that we will not be severely timetabled to an hour or two. We need to discuss that through the usual channels. I give the Minister notice that I believe that we need at least a complete day on the Floor of the House on Report, or possibly longer. I need to reflect on that. Then, of course, it will go to the other place. It is important that these matters are debated properly. People outside will not understand that whole chunks of the Bill are undebated. 
 I return to the subject of timetabling. This morning, Mr. Hurst, your co-Chairman said that the Modernisation Committee was considering the matter. Several points need to be made about timetabling. First, I do not like it. I would have been 
 more than happy to agree to have no timetable, as the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and I did when we were the usual channels for the Committee considering the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. That Committee lasted for six weeks, and we finished exactly on the day on which I had given an undertaking to the Government usual channels that we would. That is a far better way of working because things can go wrong in Committee—as we found under the straitjacket of the motion that was passed in the House this morning—and it makes much more sense than going on until 7.30 pm, thus inconveniencing every Member. I do not mind. I would have been happy to go on until midnight, as the Minister offered, although he then retracted that. It does not make any difference to me, but that is not a clever way of working. We would have been much better off doing that, but we could not do that under the terms of the timetable agreed by the House. The Standing Orders need to be more flexible so that we can discuss such matters. 
 With those few remarks, I reiterate to the Government that not enough time was allowed for this Bill. However, we are grateful for the Government's flexibility, and we will do our best to proceed expeditiously and see how much we can get through.

Matthew Green: Right from the start, our position on the matter has been to give the Government their head in terms of making decisions about timetabling. We have always had concerns about the amount of time available, which we raised from the start. Clearly, we would not have finished everything, even if we had gone on until midnight, as the Minister offered. I felt duty bound to accept that offer. Unfortunately, it was clear that some of his colleagues probably wished that he had not said that.

Andrew Turner: So does he.

Matthew Green: Indeed. Inspiration winged its way—not from his usual sources, but from those behind him. I felt duty bound to accept the midnight offer, but see that we will now finish at 7.30 pm.
 The Government ought to be credited with the fact that they have been flexible in changing the order of consideration so that we can discuss certain amendments, including a Government amendment to clause 40, which will make a substantive change to the planning system. If the Committee had not got to that, we would not have done the Bill, or practitioners, a service. With that, and the fact that I would have liked to continue until midnight, I will leave the matter there. 
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4

Question accordingly agreed to.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in
clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (2).

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 127, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert— 
 '( ) For its area that is part of the RPB's region, the relevant authority, as described under section 4(2), shall assist the RPB in preparing a draft revision of the RSS.'.
 Amendment No. 199, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 25, at end insert— 
 '(3) Before preparing a draft revision of the RSS the RPB must set out proposals to ensure appropriate public consultation on the contents of the RSS in accordance with such guidance as is specified by the Secretary of State.'.
 Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 26, at end insert— 
 '( ) the need to integrate considerations of landuse planning, transport and sustainable resource management; 
 ( ) placing protection of the environment as the overarching principal consideration of the RSS;'.
 Amendment No. 129, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 32, at end insert— 
 '(da) the views of the authorities in section 4(2);'.
 Amendment No. 200, in 
clause 5, page 3, leave out line 34 and insert— 
 '(f) the Regional Economic Strategy for its region; 
 (g) the Minerals and Waste Strategies prepared by County Councils within its region; 
 (h) such other matters as are prescribed.'.
 Amendment No. 131, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 38, after 'prepare', insert 'and publish'.
 Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 5, page 4, line 6, at end insert 
 ', and— 
 (aa) carry out full public consultation on the draft. 
 (6A) After consultation, the RPB must produce a second draft revision incorporating any changes it deems desirable in the light of the views expressed.The RPB must then— 
 (a) publish the second draft revision, report and other document; 
 (b) submit them to the Regional elected Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary os State.'.
 Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 5, page 4, leave out line 7.

Matthew Green: Seven of the amendments have been tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and two have been tabled by the Conservative Front Bench. Amendment No. 126 would remove the need for the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision. I just have a simple question: why should it have to do that—particularly if ministerial instructions oblige it to do so regularly? In debating the previous amendment, the Minister said that regulations would allow a Minister to dictate the period of time in which
 revisions should take place. In that case, why is a formal process necessary, under which the regional planning body must tell the Minister that it is about to begin the work? That seems an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, and I am sure that the Minister is keen to remove bureaucracy in the planning system.
 Amendment No. 127 would ensure that certain local authorities would have to assist the regional planning body in preparing a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. That is to ensure dialogue between all the relevant authorities. 
 Amendment No. 128 would ensure that in preparing the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy the regional planning body must have regard to, first, 
''the need to integrate considerations of land-use planning, transport and sustainable resource management''
 and, secondly, 
''placing protection of the environment as the over-arching principal consideration of the RSS''.
 We tabled it to try to introduce the concept of sustainability into the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. I know what the Minister is going to tell me about that. He will say that there is no need for an amendment, because next week the Government will publish the planning policy statement on sustainability, and the issue will be covered.

Terry Rooney: It is tomorrow.

Matthew Green: It is tomorrow. Inspiration has winged its way to me from the Labour Benches.
 I know what the Minister will say, but the amendment was tabled because we had no indication of what the Government's definitions of sustainability would be, or how they would be produced. We now know the answer, and I repeat that it would have been helpful to have the relevant information in advance. 
 Amendment No. 129 is intended to ensure that when it is preparing the draft revision the regional planning body must have regard to 
''the views of the authorities in section 4(2)''—
 which are a county council, a metropolitan district council, a district council for an area with no county council, or a national park authority. That is meant to ensure cross-authority dialogue and consultation, which I am sure the Minister would want. I am concerned about what may happen if that is not made explicit. Regional planning bodies may choose not to follow guidance, whereas they would have no choice about complying with a provision in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 131 would ensure publication, not just preparation, of 
''a report of the findings of the appraisal''
 under clause 5(4)(b). The appraisal in question would relate to the sustainability of the proposals in the draft. There is currently no requirement for publication. I should have thought, what with open government and all that, that the Minister would be falling over himself to accept the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 134 would ensure full public consultation on the draft revision of the regional 
 spatial strategy. Not only would it ensure that the public would be consulted, but it would also mean that the regional planning body would have to produce a second draft incorporating any ideas from the consultation that it deemed important. The amendment is in a sense an attempt to make sure that real consultation, not sham consultation, is what takes place. 
 About 10 years ago in Shropshire county council—it could have been anywhere—a Labour councillor who had better remain nameless asked in an open meeting, ''How can we consult? We haven't decided what we're going to do yet.'' I am sure that he has come a long way since. The intention behind the provisions is not to allow those attitudes to fall into place regionally. Again, I am sure that the Minister would be only too happy to ensure that such consultation is genuine consultation, and not just an attempt to window-dress for the public. 
 Amendment No. 135, which is my final amendment in the group, would mean that the regional planning body would not have to submit the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State. Under amendment No. 134, the draft revision would have to be submitted 
''to the Regional elected Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State.''
 Why should the Secretary of State have primacy over the elected regional Assembly where one exists? Where democratic accountability is built in, we would surely expect the draft revision to go to the regional Assembly rather than to the Secretary of State. After all, the Welsh and Scottish spatial plans would not come to London and be presented to the Minister. Rather, they rest with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. I may be wrong, but I do not expect to see the Minister sitting and working through the details of the Welsh spatial strategy. In that case, why does the draft revision need to go to the Secretary of State where there are elected regional Assemblies? Why can it not rest with the elected regional authority? 
 Those are my seven amendments, and I shall let the Conservatives speak to theirs, both of which we broadly support.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would like first to address the Committee on amendments No. 199 and 200. Amendment No. 199 says:
''Before preparing a draft revision of the RSS the RPB must set out proposals to ensure appropriate public consultation on the contents of the RSS in accordance with such guidance as is specified by the Secretary of State.''
 That is a long-winded way of saying that there should be proper public consultation in the Bill. We have at huge length dealt with part 2 of the Bill on making local plans, and are now on part 1, which deals with regional aspects, on which it would be thoroughly desirable to have complete public consultation as well. 
 The Minister said earlier in our proceedings that he did not feel that many outside individuals would want to take part in that consultation, except for one or two specialist lobbying organisations. I think and hope 
 that he is wrong in that assessment. Some of my more articulate constituents, who write to me regularly and often about planning, will want to take part in the process, so we must take amendment No. 199 seriously and make the process easy and accessible to them. 
 Before discussing the role of county councils in relation to amendment No. 129, I should like to turn to amendment No. 200, which says in paragraph (g) that in preparing the regional spatial strategy, regard must be had for 
''the Minerals and Waste Strategies prepared by County Councils within its region,''
 and 
''such other matters as are prescribed.''
 I do not know how it would be possible to draw up a proper regional spatial strategy without considering the minerals and waste strategies prepared by county councils. That issue impinges on so many other things that it would have to be considered. Other matters like minerals and waste strategies will also need to be considered. If the Minister is not minded to accept amendment No. 200, he will need to explain carefully how that will work. 
 I would like to come back to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 129, and discuss the view of authorities in section 4(2). As one might expect, we have had a number of representations from county councils. A particularly good one was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) by his county council, Essex county council. It is worth putting on the record what it says are the issues that define statutory roles for county councils in drawing up the RSS. It says: 
''It is important for all local authorities to have a statutory stake in the RSS process, as it will impinge on strategic and local levels and will need their commitment.''
 Of course that will need their commitment. 
''Given the lack of other formal engagement in the new planning system, it will be particularly important for county councils to have a statutory role in helping to prepare the RSS. The Bill proposes that the role of county councils will be to advise district authorities on the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) (if asked) and provide technical advice to the regional planning body and assist on the sub-regional aspects of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) (again, if asked). This role is not statutory.
Failure to establish a statutory planning duty for county councils will inevitably erode the strategic planning function. It will lead to a reduction in funding for strategic planning and the subsequent loss of strategic planning skills, which will be to the detriment of both the RSS and the LDF.''
 I made that point this morning when we were discussing chief planning officers. I have a real fear as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a professional that if we do not deal with the transitional arrangements carefully, there will be a severe haemorrhaging of experienced planning officers from county councils. The Government will need to address that. 
 The representations continue: 
''In many parts of the country, county councils have traditionally provided the bulk of the expertise and monitoring to underpin both regional planning guidance and local plans. Monitoring and policy capability does not currently exist at regional or local levels''.
 Even more importantly, if that does not exist at regional levels and county councils are haemorrhaging staff, we could find ourselves with a gap in expertise, at least for a time. 
''The government has indicated that from next year, money currently going to county councils will go direct to Regional Planning Bodies.''
 That is exactly what I have been saying throughout the Committee. The money is all going to set up those regional planning bodies—on expensive buildings, new staff, probably expensive buildings in Brussels, and everything else. 
 The document continues by stating that the way in which 
''county councils are expected to continue to provide input with less money and an intermittent, insecure and voluntary role, at the request of their partners, is not explained. At best, county council resources in these areas will slowly wither away. Political commitment will inevitably decline for what will have become an ancillary activity and not a core function.
However, the government acknowledges the importance of county councils. Is this a case of a desire to have legislative clarity, vis-à-vis outcomes on elected regional assemblies, outweighing a desire to enact legislation that will actually deliver on the ground?''
 We need to consider that matter carefully, and consider how the transition will take place vis-à-vis county councils and vis-à-vis drawing up the plans. I already cited the Government's desire that the local development scheme should be in operation by the end of next year, and the actual plan documents by 2007. That is an ambitious target. It is going to need every bit of good will from every authority. If we do not put such matters in the Bill, or at least have clarity in Government guidance, I do not know how we will achieve what the Government have set out to do.

Keith Hill: I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Hurst and know how much you are looking forward to the somewhat longer sitting that beckons. I welcome also the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), the other voice of the land of paradise in our Committee. It is a delight to see him in his place.
 This is a large group of amendments and it covers a lot of ground on the new regional planning arrangements. Perhaps I might begin by indicating to the Committee my understanding of the purport of the amendments, so that we are absolutely clear about the ground on which we stand. Amendment No. 126 would remove the requirement for the regional planning body to give notice to the Secretary of State of its intention to prepare a draft revision—an RSS. I will, with the indulgence of the Committee, move to those initials so beloved of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, and regional spatial strategies henceforward will be RSSs in Hill-speak. 
 Amendment No. 127 would require for their own areas county councillors, unitary authorities and national park authorities to help the RPB, aka the regional planning body, to prepare draft revisions of the RSS. Amendment No. 199 would require the RPB to set out, before it began to prepare a draft revision of the RSS, proposals to secure public consultation on the contents of the revision in line with guidance from the Secretary of State. 
 Amendment No. 128 would explicitly require the RPB to consider the need to integrate transport, land use planning and the sustainable management of resources and place the protection of the environment as the overarching principle when preparing a draft revision of the RSS. Amendment No. 129 would require the RPB to have regard to the views of county councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities in preparing a draft revision to the RSS. Amendment No. 200 would specify the regional economic strategy and county mineral waste strategies as matters to which the RPB must have regard when preparing a draft revision of the RSS. 
 Amendment No. 131 would require an RPB to publish the report of the sustainability appraisal of a draft revision, and amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are intended to provide for the RPB to prepare and consult on a draft revision of the RSS twice before submitting the second draft of that revision to the elected regional assembly or, if there is not one, to the Secretary of State. So far, so good. 
 I should like to deal first with the amendments concerning the role of county councils and other types of authority with an expertise in strategic planning in the regional planning arrangements in part 1 of the Bill. We have just published for consultation the draft regulations and guidance on regional and local planning under the Bill. I am sure that you, Mr. Hurst, have had time to digest their contents, but I should like to take the opportunity to set out in detail the role of the authorities in the new regional planning system. 
 The authorities will have a critical strategic role in the new regional planning arrangements for involvement and partnership working. The provision for that role is not only in the Bill but also in regulations and guidance. I stress that it is only from those authorities that the RPBs must consider whether assistance is desirable and, if so, try to arrange it. This is not about officers from those authorities working to an RPB brief. If an RPB enters an arrangement with a county council, for example, it will be an agreement between the council and the RPB. They will work together and county officers will report to their members. 
 Regulations will ensure that these also have a significant input to draft RSS revisions. RPBs will have to consult them up front before finalising proposals to put to the Secretary of State. Thereafter, those authorities will be kept informed and consulted at each stage. The RPB will also have to prepare a statement on whom it has consulted, what they said and how it is taking that into account. That will also reinforce the need for the RPB to have properly involved those authorities in preparing a draft revision of the RSS. 
 The final element of the package that defines the role of those authorities is guidance. Draft PPS11 makes it clear that the RPB should be particularly careful to ensure that it works on a partnership basis with the authorities to ensure strategy buy-in. The PPS 
 draws particular attention to the role of counties and unitary councils in assisting the RPB in developing the policy and, subsequently, implementing it through their service responsibilities—education and transport, for example. 
 PPS11 states that that should be a two-way process in that priorities in those service areas should help to shape the RSS revision. PPS11 also states that the counties will have a particularly important role in sub-regional studies, both as participants and, often, as leaders, working to an agreed brief drawn up by the RPB in conjunction with them and other interested planning authorities and stakeholders. The guidance also makes it clear that the Government expect RPBs and those authorities entering arrangements to work together in all regions. For example, the authorities might provide technical expertise, help or lead work on sub-regional elements. 
 I have covered this at some length, but I have done so in order to demonstrate that we fully expect counties and these other councils to help the RPB prepare draft revisions to RSSs. RPBs will seek and take account of these authorities' views when preparing draft revisions and, doubtless, in their wider work.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he was coming to this matter, but I should be grateful if he would explain how, if he is going to take the money away from county councils and give it to the regions, the counties will have the resources to carry out that strategic function.

Keith Hill: It is not as if, I might say, the counties are going to be entirely stripped of all kinds of funding. There will be funding available in relation to their continuing strategic functions. The picture of a kind of stripping out of the county level and its funnelling into the financial milch cow of the regional chambers is somewhat exaggerated.
 I turn now to the amendments that we are debating. Amendment No. 127 is not acceptable because a duty for those councils to help the RPB would not work in practice. It is not, for example, sensible to compel a county council to help an RPB when it is not willing to do so voluntarily. An involuntary working relationship risks problems and delays, with disputes about who is responsible for what. That is why clause 4 is framed as it is. The RPB must be willing, the county must be willing and they must arrange together what the county is to do. 
 Amendment 129 is about the RPB taking account of the views of those authorities. I have already explained how regulations and guidance will achieve that. Amendment 129 is not therefore necessary. 
 I turn now to the amendments about consultation on draft revisions to RSS. Community involvement—it needs to be involvement not simply consultation—should be central to the process. The issue is how best that will actually be achieved. 
 It is certainly sensible, as amendment 199 proposes, for the RPB to set out its proposals for consultation 
 and for the Secretary of State to give guidance on that. That is what will happen. Draft PPS11 requires that, as part of the project plan, the RPB sets out how it proposes to involve the community from the beginning to the end of the revision process. We expect community involvement to be project managed in the same way as the rest of the RSS revision process of which it is an integral part. 
 Perhaps it would be helpful for the few Committee members who have not had time to digest the package of draft regulations and guidance that was circulated on 14 October if I remind them of the main elements of the comprehensive arrangements for community involvement that we have set out in the draft regulations and in PPS11. 
 The regional planning body is required by the draft regulations to consult a number of specific and representative bodies in drawing up the draft RSS. At the same time, it is required to send the Secretary of State a statement setting out who has been consulted and how, the main issues raised and how they have been addressed in the draft revision. It is also required to send copies of the draft RSS and supporting documents to all those whom the RPB thinks may have an interest or who have made representations, and to make copies of the draft RSS and supporting documents available around the region and on the web. 
 Both in the main body of the text and in an annex on community involvement, PPS11details what the RPB should and could do to involve the community. I give a couple of examples. The RPB must hold a one-day public conference to seek agreement that the issues identified for the revision are the right ones. Secondly, the RPB must consider establishing a group, chaired and comprised of people from outside the RPB and the local authorities, that should be consulted at milestones, as the draft RSS emerges. 
 To require the publication of a first and a second draft, as suggested in amendments Nos. 134 and 135 would be too prescriptive. The RPB may wish to do that, but it should be the planning body's decision. It should be based on the circumstances of the revision, and have regard to the need to stick to the timetable set out in PPS11, of twelve months between an agreed project plan and the submission of the draft revision to the Secretary of State. 
 As I have said so often, we want involvement to be front-loaded as much as possible. The stage when the community's input will make most difference is often while the formal document is emerging, not once the draft has been published.

Andrew Turner: I welcome the Minister's remarks about involvement being front-loaded. Will he expand his guidance to give local authorities every encouragement to hold planning meetings at a time when people who work, those who have responsibility for child care or the care of the elderly, and people who have difficulty accessing public transport, will be able to attend? It is no good such meetings taking place in county hall on a Wednesday afternoon, when many people are working.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for yet another eminently relevant and sensible contribution. I assure him that we will certainly take those suggestions on board when we finalise our draft guidance.

Matthew Green: The Minister has just lumped together amendments Nos. 134 and 135, and said that they would mean having to publish two drafts, and that they would be too prescriptive. He completely glossed over the issue of whether, if there is an elected regional assembly, the RPB should have to submit a statement to the Secretary of State, as set out in the Bill. He may be right that the amendments are too prescriptive in other ways, but together they would mean that a regional elected assembly would not have to submit a statement to the Secretary of State. That is, the amendments would treat regional assemblies the same as Wales and Scotland.

Keith Hill: Let me say it again—I think that I have said it before, but it is fundamental to our understanding of regional spatial strategies. When we have elected regional authorities, the strategies will be devised by the elected authority, and they will be the property of the authority. It must be remembered that, until that time, regional spatial strategies are the property of the Secretary of State.

Matthew Green: The problem is that the Bill does not say that. Clause 5(6) states:
''When the RPB''—
 it will be called an RPB whether or not it is an elected body— 
''has prepared a draft revision . . . it must—
(b) submit them to the Secretary of State.''
 It does not say that when there is an elected regional assembly in the region where the RPB is, it does not have to submit them to the Secretary of State. It is implicit that the Secretary of State will still have the power to say yes or no to a regional spatial strategy that has been approved by an elected regional assembly.

Keith Hill: Aha! The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. We shall amend the Bill under the elected regional assemblies legislation. That will resolve the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow on having spotted that, and having achieved the first acceptance of an amendment in this Committee—albeit this Minister, unlike his predecessor, rejects them with a smile.
 I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said. There will be a problem with regard to community involvement in large regions, such as the south-east and the south-west. For example, the south-west stretches from Tewkesbury in the north to the Isles of Scilly in the south. It is a vast region. May I make a practical suggestion? Might the regions consider holding sub-regional road shows so that people in local areas can understand what their region is proposing in its regional spatial strategy?

Keith Hill: That is an extremely good idea and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That should be fed back into, if not guidance, the ethos, culture and messages that we shall want to convey as we elaborate the process of community involvement under the regional spatial strategy framework.
 Now we come to the amendments that concern the regional spatial strategy, what it should contain and the principles and documents to which the regional planning body should have regard in preparing revisions. I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed in Amendment No. 128 about the need for the RSS to integrate land use planning, transport and sustainable resource management considerations. Including that in the Bill, however, raises difficult questions about what we mean by those terms in a way that will stand up legally. For example, how would the parties opposite define, in legal terms, what sustainable resource management means? I pause, and no offers are forthcoming. 
 The fact that the regional transport strategy is a part of the RSS and there is a requirement for a sustainability appraisal on the draft revision of the RSS provide assurance that transport and sustainability issues will be looked at in an integrated way within the RSS revision process. The consultation draft of PPS11 stresses the need for the RSS to provide a development strategy that provides priorities for the environment and transport among other topic areas. Guidance is the best way of achieving the integration of those matters that we are all looking for. 
 On the second aspect of amendment No. 128, I am concerned that setting protection of the environment as the overarching principal consideration of the RSS serves to unbalance its purpose. The policies in the RSS should help to deliver sustainable communities for the future. It will be necessary to weigh up social and economic considerations as well as environmental ones, without giving precedence to any one in particular. There is no chance that environmental considerations will be ignored. As well as the sustainability appraisal on the draft RSS required by the Bill, there will also—as we discussed, debated and agreed before—be the strategic environment assessment directive. That will require revisions of the draft RSS to be subject to an assessment of its effects on the environment. 
 Amendment No. 200 would add the regional economic strategy in each region and the minerals and waste strategies prepared by county councils to the list of matters that the RPB must have regard to when preparing a draft revision to an RSS. The hon. Member for Cotswold drew attention to that provision. 
 My view is that it is better to leave the matter to regulation and guidance, which will provide us with the flexibility that may be necessary if circumstances change. Draft regulation 8 requires the regional planning body to have regard to the regional economic strategy in the region when the draft revision of the RSS is being prepared. PPS11 emphasises the essential importance of the RSS and regional economic strategy complementing and reinforcing one another. 
 The reason why we should not include the county mineral and waste strategies is simple. There will be a significant number of partial RSS revisions that will not be concerned with mineral or waste matters. It would not be sensible to require the regional planning body to have regard to county mineral and waste strategies for completely unrelated revisions. 
 In conclusion, the amendments would not change what the draft revision to the RSS looks like, so they are unnecessary. That brings me to the remaining amendments in the group.

Mark Francois: Just before the Minister moves off the group, may I make one point? The Minister has this afternoon appeared to draw a distinction between involvement and simple consultation. He has implied that involvement is a much more active process, in which people have a much larger input than they do in consultation, in which they are shown something and asked to comment on it. Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention for county councils to be actively involved in the drawing up of regional spatial strategies?
 I make that point because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has pointed out, the Government have an ambitious timetable for making the process work. If they are going to do that, realistically, it will not work unless county councils are brought within the tent. Will the Minister then say something to reassure county councillors and their planning staff that they will be actively involved in the drawing up of RSSs, as opposed to being just consultees?

Keith Hill: As the hon. Gentleman knows, county councils are statutory consultees under the terms of the Bill. The answer to his question about active involvement is that I would expect to see such active involvement where the counties wish to be so engaged. I hope that that satisfies him and is a positive message to the counties—I am aware of some misgivings on such matters.
 Finally, I come to the remaining amendments in the group. I cannot agree with amendment No. 126, which would mean that the regional planning body would not have to tell the Secretary of State that it intended to prepare a draft revision of the RSS. As I said, the RSS is the Secretary of State's policy and it is only right that the RPB should give him notice of when it intends to draft revisions to his policies.

Matthew Green: In the light of the Minister's response to my intervention in relation to amendment No. 135, can I take it that when there are elected regional assemblies, the new Bill to give powers to the regional assemblies will also remove the requirement on them to tell the Secretary of State every time they are going to make a draft revision to an RSS that belongs to the assembly, not the Secretary of State?

Keith Hill: Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.
 Amendment No. 131 is not necessary. I entirely agree that the regional planning body should publish the report of its sustainability appraisal of a draft revision of an RSS. That is required in the draft regulations on part 1 of the Bill. 
 In the light of the explanations that I have attempted to offer on this large and diverse group of amendments, I sincerely trust that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: I am much encouraged by the Minister's responses. For perhaps the first time, we have almost seen the acceptance of an amendment, even if it is going to be in a future Bill, which I suppose is half a loaf, if not the whole loaf. Also, I am reassured that when we do have elected regional assemblies, the Secretary of State will divest his powers to them.
 We have long argued that if elected regional assemblies are to work and to prove popular, and if we are to win the referendums due to be held next autumn, we need to make it absolutely clear that they will have real powers. Most, if not all, of those powers should be devolved to them from Westminster rather than sucked up from local councils. Otherwise, the public will not want them and will not support them. This is the first indication today that a few more powers than were originally published might be handed down to the regions, although I understand that there were difficulties at the time in getting all the Ministers to agree which powers they were handing down. Clearly, this Minister is a much more devolving Minister who is happy to give power away. That is a very welcome step forward. 
 I accept the Minister's explanation that my other amendments are unnecessary thanks to guidance that has already been published or that is about to be published. In the case of guidance that has already been published, however, I must point out that we have to table our amendments at least two days in advance of a sitting. 
 I also accept the Minister's point that amendment No. 134 could have the perverse effect of creating unnecessary bureaucracy. I am also grateful for the tone that the Minister has adopted in relation to the amendments and for the first signs of a Minister prepared to let go. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 338, in
clause 5, page 3, line 26, at end insert— 
 '( ) local authorities' Landscape Character Assessments; 
 ( ) the need to protect and enhance rural tranquility;)'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 342, in
clause 5, page 4, line 9, at end insert— 
 '(8) In this section, ''Landscape Character Assessment'' means an assessment carried out in accordance with the Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland published by the Countryside Agency.'.

Andrew Turner: I have a sneaking suspicion that the Minister may consider some of his remarks in response
 to the previous debate to be appropriate in response to this one. I tabled the amendment because I believed that there was a particular need for regional planning bodies to have regard to the interests of rural areas in considering their regional spatial strategy revision, as most of those regional bodies, if not all of them, will be dominated substantially by urban dwellers, and some rural areas need to be protected not only for the benefit of people who live there and those who visit there, but for the country as a whole.
 Amendment No. 338 would require the RPB to have regard to the local authority's landscape character assessment, which is defined in amendment No. 342, and to have regard to 
''the need to protect and enhance rural tranquillity''.
 What evidence do I have for my concern that insufficient account may be taken of the needs of rural areas? First, most of the regions that the Government have designated are built around very large conurbations, with the exception of those south of the line from the Wash to the Severn. Each region centres on a conurbation with a substantial urban population of more than 1 million, whether it is Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Newcastle, the south-east or the eastern region, but not the south-west, where the reverse is true. The further a region is from urban areas, the less account is generally taken of its needs. I illustrate that by referring to a consultation document on airport strategy, which the Minister's colleague has just published. That document was so knowledgeable about the regions of England, and particularly rural areas, that the map that went with it placed the Isle of Wight somewhere off Portland Bill. Not only is that the wrong place, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) knows, but it is not even in the right region. 
 I fear that such ignorance may not be confined to the Department for Transport. It may be present in some regional planning bodies. It is proposed that, should regional governance reach the south-east, the region would have something like 38 representatives. My constituency would share a representative with two constituencies in Portsmouth, two in Southampton and two or three across the southern part of Hampshire. There would be very little input, proportionately, for rural areas. I believe that rural areas need to be protected, and the amendment would deal with that. 
 In response to an earlier debate, to which I hope I can refer without being out of order, Mr. Hurst, the Minister suggested that PPS11 would contain a wealth of useful detail on what the regional planning body should take into account. I therefore thumbed through to find out where rural tranquillity was referred to in draft PPS11. Although I did not read every word, I could not find any reference to rural tranquillity or to landscape character assessments. Even when I turned to annexe A, the annotated bibliography of topic-specific policy, in which I expected those topics to be recorded, perhaps in alphabetical order, or perhaps thematically, I came across a page with nothing on it except the heading. 
 The Minister needs to add some information to annexe A, if he would not mind. It is at page 29, for the information of the Committee, that he states that the relevant information will be available in the final version of the PPS. Will he confirm that, in the final version, the annotated bibliography will contain reference to landscape character assessments and other documents? Otherwise, I will need a very good reason to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Keith Hill: Let us remind ourselves that the amendment would require regional planning bodies to have regard to local authorities' landscape character assessments carried out in accordance with guidance issued by the Countryside Agency, and to the need to protect and enhance rural tranquillity when preparing a draft revision of their regional spatial strategies.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight can anticipate that I shall not necessarily immediately embrace his amendment. However, the Committee has certainly appreciated the important issues that he has raised in a series of amendments—in particular the amendment on the subject of master planning, which was ably moved in his absence by his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). I found it most thought-provoking, even if I had to reject it, just as I must reject the amendment before the Committee. I do not believe that the amendment would bring about the right approach to the issues. They should properly be considered in the context of reviews of national planning policies and advice, and they do not need to be specified in primary legislation. 
 The hon. Gentleman made something of the lack of relevant references in the famous draft PPS11. However, he is looking in the wrong place. The right place is PPS7 on planning policy on sustainable development in rural areas. That is already out for consultation and the final version will certainly cover rural topics in relation to the regional spatial strategy. Indeed, the consultation now being undertaken on the draft of new planning policy statement 7 provides the opportunity for those issues to be considered, along with other planning policies for sustainable development in rural areas and the protection of the countryside. 
 If the need to have regard to local authorities' landscape character assessments or the need to protect and enhance rural tranquillity were to be identified as national planning policies in the final published versions of planning policy statements, clause 5(3)(a) would place the necessary requirement on regional planning bodies to have regard to those policies.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised a rather pertinent point when speaking about draft PPS11. He may have been looking in the wrong place, but annexe A of the annotated bibliography of topic-specific policy is a rather wonderful page with absolutely nothing on it. Does the Minister expect it to be a common procedure for the Government to publish draft policy with blank pages?

Keith Hill: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should protest. It is consultation par excellence. People can provide their own draft—that is what I call community involvement.
 The amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can I take it from the Minister's statement that in future consultations the Opposition's views will be properly taken into account?

Keith Hill: The Opposition's views are always properly taken into account—and instantaneously dismissed.

Andrew Turner: I have not had the privilege of reading PPS7—I clearly should have done so—but I am glad that we will have the opportunity for a write-in vote on the bibliography. People will be able to write their own policy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Regional planning bodies

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 271, in
clause 2, page 2, line 3, after 'may', insert 'only'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 272, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end, insert 
 'if a referendum has been held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and it has been voted in the affirmative under the provisions of that Act.'.
 Amendment No. 117, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3).

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The amendment, if I can find it—

Matthew Green: Would I be right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that the amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can give a direction recognising the body as the regional planning body only when it satisfies such criteria as are prescribed? At present, it is not a stipulation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. He has explained amendment No. 271 better than I can, so I move quickly on to the next amendment.
 Amendment No. 272 would provide that the regional authority may carry out those functions only if a referendum has been held. This is an important clause. We believe that regional planning bodies should not be created until a referendum has been held and voted for in the affirmative. It is a question of democratic accountability. Regional bodies are almost exclusively made up of indirectly elected members. No one knows who they are. They are not accountable to anyone, or are only slightly accountable. The granting of such huge powers to largely unaccountable people is a democratic deficit. 
 I hark back to our previous debates on whether the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's policy until there is an elected regional assembly. I hope that we never have elected regional assemblies. If 
 we do, the whole democratic position will change. Until then, we have a democratic problem: the Government are rushing ahead with the regional planning agenda, in which we do not believe. They should carefully consider the democratic legitimacy of that.

Matthew Green: I believe that I have already spoken to amendment No. 171, so I will move on to the amendment tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton .
 Amendment No. 117 would leave out subsection (3), which states: 
''The Secretary of State may give a direction withdrawing recognition of''
 a regional planning body. It is not so much that I want to take that power away, as that I want the Minister to explain under what circumstances the Secretary of State might withdraw recognition of a regional planning body and what the consequences would be if the Secretary of State assumed the functions of that body. That is probably how it would work. That provision is particularly draconian, and I assume that the Minister will say that he hopes that it will never have to be used, and that he would not go anywhere near it. 
 We need to know—I am sure that local planning bodies would like to know—under what sort of circumstances the Secretary of State would withdraw recognition, and how the system would then function. If regional spatial strategies were operating across the country and one regional planning body were to have its recognition withdrawn, there would be a great hole in the planning structure, which would have to be filled by the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Secretary of State could cope with the minutiae that I am sure will exist in every RSS in the country, but he may struggle to find the time to do so. What arrangements will there be to deal with such circumstances? Amendment No. 117 is a probing amendment. It is for the Minister to explain how, why and what would happen in those circumstances. 
 I take this opportunity to add my strong support to the principle of amendment No. 272, although I suspect that it is not the way to solve the problem because the drafting would have slightly odd consequences. 
 The Bill will take some powers away from county councils, but not all of them: they will be left with waste and minerals. Those powers are currently administered by elected county councillors, but will pass to RPBs. By next autumn, we may have some referendums, which will hopefully result in yes votes in the three northern regions. It is conceivable that six months to a year later, we will have functioning elected regional assemblies in those regions. Short of an earthquake, the Government are not going to win referendums in the south-east, the south-west or, I suspect, most of the midlands, given their regional boundaries. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be elected regional assemblies, certainly in the south-east, in the foreseeable future. I regret that, as I would like us to have regional assemblies. The boundaries are wrong and should be changed. 
 We will have a period of five or 10 years, in which powers will have been taken from elected councillors and given to an unelected body, an RPB. We will have a quasi-elected regional body—not even that; it will have people on it who have been elected to other bodies—councillors roughly in proportion to the political strength in the region—but that is not really the same. The regional planning bodies will not be accountable in such circumstances. They are accountable to the Secretary of State. Essentially, until there are elected regional assemblies, this represents a centralising of power.—Ultimately, power rests with the Secretary of State. That is of deep concern to anybody who is a democrat or a proponent of the devolution of power, as I am sure that the Minister is. 
 However, for a considerable period, probably at least five years, there will be no devolution of power. Amendment No. 272 seeks—probably in an imperfect way—to ensure that the powers are not taken from the county councils and that the regional planning body is not set up until there is a regional elected assembly. Until then, we would continue to have the current structure. There is planning at a regional level—the Government office does some—but the power still rests with the county councils. I realise that that will cause the Government problems, because there will be different speeds in different parts of the country. However, that is a consequence of devolution, something that both my party and the Minister's agree is a way forward.

Mark Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we already have different speeds in different parts of the country and that we already have different arrangements for London?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are in a multi-speed situation in terms of devolution and I see no reason why we cannot be multi-speed in terms of the rearrangement of the planning system. Once there are elected bodies—we heard under the previous clause that the powers will be taken away from the Secretary of State when there are elected regional bodies—there will be some devolution of power. The Secretary of State will no longer have the control over planning that he has at the moment in that he could call in the plan of any level of body and exert control over it.
 I hope that the Minister will, if he does not accept the amendment—I would be stunned if he did—at least take good heed that there is an electoral problem for the Government. This is, potentially, the most controversial aspect of the Bill—the taking of powers from elected bodies and handing them to unelected bodies. I am fairly certain that that is something that the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, and probably many Labour peers and Cross Benchers in the Lords will have an interesting time agreeing on. I suspect that the Minister will need to find a way of accommodating our concerns. If a line is to be drawn in the sand on this Bill, this is probably where it is. If the Minister does not accept amendments here or on Report, this is probably the issue that will cause us to continue to vote against the Bill, as we did on Second 
 Reading. We accept that there is much in it that would improve the planning system, but to take powers away from elected people and hand them to unelected people is a step too far. We cannot find that acceptable. 
 I am pleased that the Conservatives have tabled the amendment, even though I do not think that it is the way to deal with the problem, as it has allowed us to raise the issue and to deal with a serious democratic deficit.

Andrew Turner: I am pleased to support the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ludlow has pointed out, they sharply illustrate the key problem, which is that local authorities are going to lose powers either to a nominee or a group of nominees of the Secretary of State, or to the Secretary of State himself. Neither the nominees nor, to a lesser extent, the Secretary of State, will have any democratic accountability within the region.
 The group of nominees that has been appointed to the regional planning body for the south-east of England, fortuitously, includes a member of the local authority in my constituency. His name is Harry Rees and he is the economic development portfolio holder. Until he retired recently, he ran a successful tea shop in Shanklin, so he is eminently qualified for such an illustrious position.

Matthew Green: Which party does he represent?

Andrew Turner: He calls himself an independent, but he is an ex-Liberal. He still works for the Liberal Democrats. Like many independents in my constituency, he has overthrown his independence to sign up to a dirty coalition with the Liberal Democrats—

Alan Hurst: Order. The hon. Gentleman is distracting himself.

Andrew Turner: I was merely responding to the question in my normal, courteous fashion. However, I shall take your advice, Mr. Hurst. He, at least, has the advantage, in terms of representing the Isle of Wight, of being a resident of it. The Secretary of State is not a resident of the Isle of Wight and most of the appointees to the planning body are not residents of the Isle of Wight. The Secretary of State is not even a resident of the south-east of England. He is a resident of Hull, of Clapham, and of Admiralty arch. He is, for one day a month, according to a recent article in the Evening Standard, a resident of Dorneywood. However, although that is technically in the south-east of England, it is so metropolitan that it hardly counts.
 My only concern about my hon. Friend's amendment is that if the Secretary of State does not designate one of the bodies, then the Secretary of State will be the regional planning body for the south-east—or, indeed, any other area. While there is very little of advantage in a regional planning body that is designated by the Secretary of State—a series of place men appointed by the Secretary of State—there is even less advantage in the Secretary of State himself acting as the regional planning body. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that limited criticism. I shall, of 
 course, support his amendment, but I hope to have the opportunity to vote against the clause on stand part. One problem with the regional bodies is that they represent no known geographical area. There is no such place as the south-east of England. There might be such a place as Yorkshire—of course there is—but there is no such place as Yorkshire and Humber. There is no such place as the south-west of England. Any hon. Member who represents a Cornish constituency would concede that, at least going by the boundaries designated by the Secretary of State. There is, of course, a region known as East Anglia, and I shall not argue too much about its boundaries, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh might have a different view from mine. However, the idea of regions is alien to the traditions of most people in the area broadly south of a line from the Wash to the Severn. For that reason, among others, I reject the idea of regional planning bodies.

Matthew Green: As a proponent of regional government, I share many of the hon. Gentleman's reservations about the current boundaries. The Government made a big mistake in accepting boundaries that were established by a Conservative Government for an entirely different reason—for administrative purposes. I believe that it is possible to redraw the regional boundaries so that they can be accepted by the public and can perform a useful function. If the regions were such that they made sense to the people—such as the Marches region in my area, with which people identify—would many of his reservations disappear?

Andrew Turner: Some of my reservations would certainly disappear. The idea of sharing power over one's life is entirely acceptable to those with a commonality of interest. However, it would be difficult for my constituents who live in Ventnor or Freshwater to identify a commonality of interest with people in Guildford or Milton Keynes. I am sure that it would be equally difficult for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to identify a commonality of interest with the constituents of St. Ives and South-East Cornwall.
 There is a strong divide—I received a newsletter about it the other day—

Alan Hurst: Order. I remind hon. Members that the clause is not so widely drawn. We are not debating the merits or otherwise of regional government.

Andrew Turner: I accept your guidance, Mr. Hurst.
 The point of discussing the boundaries encompassed by regional government is whether it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power over a region, or to designate that power to someone or something else. That is why I drew attention to the different demands of various parts of the country. I can see that I am trespassing on the Committee's time, and that they might want to deal with more than the first three clauses before 7.15 pm. I am pleased to support the amendments, but I think that we might have a debate on clause stand part.

Keith Hill: I was magnetised by the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric and could not wait for him to continue.
 I will endeavour to reply to this interesting and wide-ranging debate. To begin, I would like to identify the purpose of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. Their effect would be to alter clause 2 to allow the Secretary of State to designate a body as a regional planning body only if there had been a positive vote in a referendum for an elected regional assembly. 
 Some opponents of the arrangements in the Bill take the line that there should be no planning reforms in England. Instead, they believe that the new arrangements should apply only in areas where elected regional assemblies are to be established, if and when they are. As drafted, the amendments appear to go even further, implying that there should no regional planning bodies until such time as the regions have voted in favour of an elected regional assembly. 
 The Bill would make the Secretary of State responsible for preparing all revisions to regional spatial strategies and for exercising the functions of the regional planning board generally as he thinks appropriate. Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power under clause 2 (3) to withdraw recognition of a body as the regional planning body. The amendments raise two key issues—first, the need for reforms to regional planning and, secondly, whether changes should be made only if a region has voted in favour of an elected regional assembly in a referendum. 
 I contend that we need effective planning at regional level. The Government believe, as did their Conservative predecessors, that regional planning is essential. Without it, we cannot sensibly address the many planning problems that cut across administrative boundaries, or properly co-ordinate transport and other investment decisions to ensure that we get the right strategic balance. Decisions about correcting major imbalances between growth and decline in a region cannot be taken at a lower level. 
 A practical example is the 1996 regional planning guidance 13 for the north-west, issued under the Conservative Government. That was a good illustration of why regional planning is necessary. One of its objectives, which we supported and which was right at the time, was to secure a modest shift in emphasis to the principle transport axes running north to south—the west coast main line and the M6 motorway. 
 Of course, the regional planning system needs to be improved. It needs to be more responsive to regional circumstances and priorities, and better able to tackle strategic planning problems where they occur. Frankly, it needs more teeth. For those reasons, regional spatial strategies should be statutory, and so part of the development plan. We should not continue with a system where outdated lower-level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. We need a system for strategic planning based around interdependent areas on the ground, not one that is constrained by administrative 
 boundaries. County boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. Many strategic planning issues cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at a regional or sub-regional level. 
 We need inclusive regional planning bodies, which consult with communities and stakeholders and involve local authorities, to take the lead on reviewing and proposing revisions to regional spatial strategy. That is what part 1 of the Bill is about. 
 I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold that the new arrangements for regional planning will result in a democratic deficit unless they happen only where there are elected regional assemblies, which he does not support either. First, a system enshrined in law rather than one based on administrative arrangements, such as the regional planning guidance issued as part of the current system, is surely stronger in democratic terms, if only because it is subject to this kind of scrutiny and debate. Secondly, the regional spatial strategy is ultimately the Secretary of State's document, and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and to this House. Thirdly, the members of the regional planning body are accountable to their constituent bodies, which include local authority members. 
 The arguments about the democratic deficit imply arbitrary, unaccountable decision making by the regional planning body, which is not a fair picture. Through legislation and guidance, we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest will have the opportunity to be involved in the regional planning process, which provides a place for representations, examinations in public and consultation with communities, stakeholders and local authorities. 
 The hon. Gentleman says that those changes should happen only in regions where people have voted for an elected regional assembly, but he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree. The regional planning reforms are essential and should be implemented as soon as possible. They should not be delayed and made only in regions in which people have voted for an elected regional assembly. 
 The Government are committed to stronger regional arrangements in all regions and establishing elected regional assemblies if people vote for them in a referendum. We made that point clear in the regions White Paper, ''Your Region, Your Choice''. We have said that we are committed to policies that recognise regional differences as a strength for the nation and that are developed closely with the people whom they affect. We want regional solutions founded in regional knowledge. 
 I shall turn to the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272.

Mark Francois: I have a practical question about accountability. Let us assume that as part of the regional spatial strategy a decision is taken to build 5,000 houses in a town in an area that does not have an elected regional assembly. The people of that town are violently against large-scale house building, perhaps
 because they feel that their local infrastructure cannot cope with it. What democratic accountability is there for the people in that town? They cannot vote out their elected regional representative because they do not have one. They could vote against their county councillors, but the Bill denudes their county council's planning power. They can protest to their Member of Parliament, but he does not have responsibility for regional spatial strategy. How could those people protest democratically about a decision that they believe to be injurious to their quality of life?

Keith Hill: If such a situation were to arise, it would be desperately serious. The premise of the hon. Gentleman's concern is inaccurate, because it assumes that the responsibility for a decision to build 5,000 houses in a locality lies with the regional planning body. That is not the case; it is the responsibility of the local planning authority and the local district. The regional spatial strategy will be a material consideration because it must be embraced in the local development framework, as he knows.
 The responsibility for decisions of that nature is essentially for the locality. It is true that we expect the regional spatial strategy to identify areas of growth, of stability and even of restoration of the green belt. Nevertheless, local people will not face the hon. Gentleman's scenario.

Mark Francois: I am not sure whether the Minister is right. This matter is germane to the whole debate. For many people, in acid terms, the debate comes down to this point. Will he explain which body will take responsibility for the allocation of the number of houses in different towns? In the past, responsibility has filtered through different levels. Under the new system, if it were decided to build so many tens or hundreds of thousands of houses in a region, who will decide where they go, working on the basis that most local authorities would resist large-scale house building in their backyards?

Keith Hill: Perhaps I ought to clarify the situation. The Secretary of State is accountable for the regional spatial strategy, which will set the overall target for growth, but the local planning authority will decide the sites. Those houses would have to be in a development plan document for which the local planning authority is accountable. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Francois: I see where the Minister is going but it does not help me.
 The local planning authority might have to decide the sites but it would not have to decide the numbers. The number of houses allocated to each local authority is critical. If a local authority is saddled with a certain number of thousands, it must solve the problem of trying to decide where they will go. The number of houses that each local authority gets is critical. Under the new system, how will that decision be taken?

Keith Hill: Essentially, the global targets for local authorities emerge from the regional spatial strategy, but local decisions about the location of sites will be part of the local planning authority's responsibilities and will form part of the development plan document.

Matthew Green: May I help the Minister? The concern is that local people's wishes and local elections will be completely ignored. I use Kidderminster hospital as an example. A health authority that was appointed by the then Secretary of State—rather like the regional planning bodies that the Secretary of State will appoint—closed it, and the then Secretary of State ratified the decision.
 Locally, the political party, Health Concern, which was opposed to the decision, won almost all district and county council elections. The decision resulted in the election of an independent MP with the second largest majority of any Member. It is probably one reason why I was elected, overturning a Conservative seat. 
 The expression of tens of thousands of local votes meant absolutely nothing, but in this case, there are local powers.

Alan Hurst: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his interventions briefer than that.

Keith Hill: Let me clarify the situation even further. It is, as I have said on several occasions, not for the district authority to decide the global target and what the numbers are. However, that situation, essentially, is no different from the present situation. In the present situation, with the exception of two-tier areas, the decision is filtered down through the counties.

Mark Francois: I appreciate the Minister's courtesy in giving way. That is exactly right. Apparently, there is a county tier and the matter is then dealt with through negotiations between the county and the various district councils. However, that tier is being largely taken out of the equation.

Terry Rooney: What about structure plans?

Mark Francois: Structure plans are going. In some cases, the regional planning body will effectively be taking decisions to allocate houses to 60 or even 80 different local authorities around the whole region. In the past in my home county, decisions were usually taken in Chelmsford and negotiated with the other councils in Essex; now they will be taken in Cambridge. Theoretically, those decisions will be taken for the whole of East Anglia under this model. What accountability is there in that? Ironically, when it comes to health, the Government have gone the other way. They abolished regional health authorities because, they argued, they were out of touch, and created strategic health authorities on a county model because they believed that such bodies were more responsive to local needs.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman slightly over-eggs the pudding in suggesting that Cambridge is so remote from Rayleigh that it cannot be aware of the local circumstances. There must be a geographical locus for such a body in any circumstances. However, let me reiterate that the body is not wildly unaccountable. It is constrained by statutes, instead of administrative law; the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament and his decisions are subject to parliamentary scrutiny; and, of course, the regional planning body, in its majority part, comprises elected members, who are accountable to their own
 authorities. To that extent, we are not talking about an organisation that is wholly removed from any kind of democratic scrutiny or accountability. It has clear lines, in the traditions of our democracy, to democratic accountability.

Matthew Green: The one area that will be considered as part of the regional spatial strategy that is currently considered by counties is transport and roads. Decisions on roads will move up from county level. I am talking not about trunk roads, but about A and B roads. Planning decisions on new roads will pass up to the regional authority. That is clearly a case in which a matter that is currently decided by elected councillors will be decided, at best, by people who have been quasi-elected—and I do not believe that it is as good as that.

Keith Hill: Let us remember that the Secretary of State does not appoint regional planning boards: 70 per cent. of the members of regional planning boards are decided on the basis of appointment by local elected authorities. They are elected members, like ourselves, and we would expect them to be responsive to the needs of localities. The other element that comprises the regional planning board is the representatives of the economic and social layers in the locality, who are also representative of local interests.
 Hon. Members have ridden the horse of unaccountability a little too hard. There are issues, and they would be considerably simplified by the emergence of elected regional authorities, but in the meantime we are not talking about the arbitrary disposition of powers by regional planning bodies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the only Member of Parliament who has ridden winners under rules, I am going to ride this race a lot harder. If a remote, unelected regional body makes a huge increase in a local authority's allocation of houses, there will be a lot of democratic dissatisfaction in that area.
 The Government's record on such matter is not very good. The communities plans are an example of that. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) tells me that his local authority was not consulted before the community plan was announced, yet the housing allocation there is to be doubled at a stroke. If the Government behave like that, it is not surprising that, as the hon. Member for Ludlow says, local people will feel aggrieved and will take it out at the local elections by electing somebody else. The Government will have to address that problem, because there will be widespread dissatisfaction. 
 Imagine the local authority in my constituency, in the Cotswolds in north-east Gloucestershire, having a hugely increased allocation imposed on it by a regional body sitting 200 miles away in Exeter. That is not local democratic accountability, and the Minister will have to address the problem.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though we were totally lacking in experience of regional bodies, but we have had the experience of the regional
 development agencies and we make dispositions about which localities should receive investments through grants, for transport developments, for example. Now we also have the experience of the regional housing boards, where, again, there is a grouping of representatives of the local authorities that, in part, have recently been asked to make dispositions with regard to housing investment. There are always difficult choices in such situations; nevertheless, we have some experience that it is possible for regions to come together and agree about local dispositions within such bodies.
 The examples from south-west Bedfordshire, the so-called growth areas, the global issues in the wider south-east and RPG9, which sets targets for housing growth relate to that. I fear that you may intervene on me at any moment, Mr. Hurst, because you think that I am going wider than the subject before us. I shall simply tell the hon. Member for Cotswold that despite all the protests about higher housing targets, it should be recognised that most of the growth catered for in the relevant provisions is indigenous growth. Local people who require more houses—

Alan Hurst: Order. The Minister is absolutely right: he is going too far.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: He wanted to be ruled out of order.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) rose—

Keith Hill: Oh, at last. I fully acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman was with us for 10 minutes at the first sitting, but after six sittings in which he has not appeared, it is my great pleasure, as we come to the dregs of our final sitting, to invite the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to intervene.

Edward Davey: The Minister is kind, as always, which was totally predictable. Having read Hansard, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has dominated the Committee with his excellent insights and held the Minister to account admirably. May I ask whether the Minister would feel happier and more comfortable if the regional planning boards were elected and accountable?

Keith Hill: It is the intention of the Government, as I understand it is of the hon. Gentleman's party, that we should move towards elected regional authorities. The Government would certainly be content for regional planning boards to operate under that particular form of democratic imprimatur.

Edward Davey: Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer them to operate under an assembly, or is he indifferent?
Keith Hill rose—

Alan Hurst: Order. We are again moving into the merits or otherwise of regional governance, as opposed to the mechanisms set out in the Bill.

Keith Hill: Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I do not feel entirely rescued from that issue, but it is perfectly true that we envisage the operation of regional planning boards under the aegis of elected regional authorities. In the meantime, however, we recognise that there is a need for regional planning. The measure sets out that
 regional planning structure within an effective and accountable framework.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to return to the example of south-west Bedfordshire—a subject on which I want the Minister to respond, for the record. If the region or the Government hand out hugely increased housing targets, surely it is wrong that the local authority should not be consulted first, but should simply be told after the decision has been taken. If that happens, it will give rise to much local dissatisfaction when the regional authorities draw up their regional spatial strategy.

Keith Hill: I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a specific case, because I do not know the circumstances. However, the general principle that he enunciates is absolutely correct. We want that level of consultation and involvement in the elaboration of regional spatial strategies. All my remarks in our proceedings have carried that emphasis. For these objectives to be realised, we look to up-front involvement, to community involvement, to early discussions and to community plans at regional and local levels. I make no bones about the reasons for our commitment to greater community involvement—a thread that runs throughout the measure. Our conviction is that local people have the right to a large say in great changes to their local environment, but we also expect that process of engagement to increase the understanding and acceptance of the case for growth where it is necessary.

Matthew Green: Before the Minister finishes speaking, I do not want to let him escape having to talk about my reason for tabling amendment No. 117, which, as I said, is a probing amendment. He gave a technical explanation of what the amendment would do, with which I agree. However, I did say that I had tabled it to get him to explain why and in what conditions the Secretary of State would withdraw recognition of a regional planning body, and what the consequences would be if the Secretary of State assumed those powers. He has not yet done so.

Keith Hill: That is because I am still coming to it; I have been detained on other matters, but let me now hasten forward. Before that last flurry of exchanges, which I welcome, I was about to discuss the effect of amendments Nos. 271 and 272. As I read those two amendments, the latter would leave out subsection (3), and both would prevent the Secretary of State from recognising a body as the regional planning body until such time as a region had voted in favour of an elected regional assembly. In regions where that had not happened, there could be no designated regional planning body.
 That would mean that the Secretary of State would be responsible for preparing the provisions of the regional spatial strategy without any input from local authorities and key stakeholders in the region through the regional chamber. It seems highly unlikely that that centralised approach is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If it is, it seems wrong to suppose that the regional planning system would benefit from it. 
 Amendment No. 117 would remove the Secretary of State's power to withdraw recognition of a body as a regional planning body—a power that I would expect the Secretary of State to exercise only in exceptional circumstances. As hon. Members will know, since 1 April this year, the regional chamber in each region has been acting as the RPB. I would envisage regional chambers being derecognised as RPBs if they fail the key test of being inclusive. The need for the RPB to be representative of key regional interests is something that we have emphasised from the Green Paper onwards, because only then can it take a strategic regional view that takes account of the interests of all stakeholders in the region. The draft regulations set minimum criteria for recognition of an RPB: 30 per cent. of members must be drawn from a non-local authority background and have voting rights on planning matters. Where the RPB ceases to meet those criteria it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to withdraw recognition of the body.

Matthew Green: In many ways, the Minister is being reassuring; but as in our discussion on a previous amendment, I am sure that he will be able to assure me that when there are elected regional assemblies, we can expect to see in the Bill that empowers them the ending of the Secretary of State's power to withdraw recognition of a regional planning body. There will then be a democratically accountable regional assembly to which the RPB will be accountable, rather than its being accountable to the Secretary of State, so that will surely be up to the elected regional assembly. Given the Minister's previous enthusiasm, I am sure that he will accede to that.

Keith Hill: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, but let me develop my argument first and then we shall come to that matter.
 If the Secretary of State could not withdraw recognition of an RPB, we could be faced with an RPB that was wholly unrepresentative, and failing to take a strategic regional view. Derecognition is ultimately and properly a decision that should be made by the Secretary of State, but that will not happen in a vacuum, or without prior discussion with interested parties. Any unreasonable use of those powers could be subject to judicial review. We will not act in an arbitrary way. In the unlikely event of derecognition being required in the future, I undertake to publish the reasons for it at that time. 
 Now I come to the hon. Gentleman's point. Those powers are necessary for the situation as it will be when the Bill is enacted, but when elected regional assemblies are established the circumstances will be different. We propose that an elected regional assembly should have statutory responsibility for preparing and publishing the regional spatial strategy. If Parliament agrees to that, it will be for Parliament, not the Secretary of State, to withdraw that responsibility through primary legislation. The circumstances will be completely different.

Andrew Turner: I have just been looking at clause 11. Can the Minister explain who on an elected regional
 body will represent the interests of, for example, people who are in the part of Yorkshire that now falls within the Cumbria county council area, but are also in a national park, and so will be dealt with by the Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly?

Keith Hill: In answer to that—[Interruption.] I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), who represents a Yorkshire constituency, for the comment from a sedentary position that no part of that national park is in Yorkshire. As a Yorkshire person, he ought to know. However, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has asked an interesting question. It would be preposterous for me to say that I know the immediate answer to it, but I will undertake to write to him.
 I have made my observations about our expectations of the situation when there is an elected regional assembly. The power to withdraw recognition is simply the necessary and sensible flip side to the power of recognition. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had an interesting debate. When I dreamed up amendment No. 272—it was probably late at night—I had no idea that it would result in such a good debate. I thought that it would be buried under a large list of amendments. I apologise to the Committee for not having been ready to debate clause 2. Because the order of consideration had been changed, I was busy preparing for clause 40—but I am ready now.
 We need to probe the Minister a little more. I seek your guidance, Mr. Hurst, as to whether I should do it now, and go slightly wide of the amendments, or whether you will allow a clause stand part debate.

Alan Hurst: I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate, but the final decision has not yet been taken. It will be taken subject to what is said during the present debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We need to examine how the regional assemblies are working prior to an affirmative referendum result. They are non-elected bodies. The White Paper ''Your region, your choice'' makes it perfectly clear that most will have between 30 and 40 members, so most are likely to have only 30 members. The Minister has already said that of those 30 members, 30 per cent. are to have a non-local authority background.
 A county like Gloucestershire will be lucky if it has one or two representatives on the South West regional assembly. If the people of Gloucestershire want to dabble in the details to find out who those members are, they will discover that their members were indirectly elected by the county council. If they ask those members why, for instance, they have allocated a particular number of houses to the Cotswolds, the members will shelter under the resources and policy committee of the county council from which they receive their instructions. 
 The regional assemblies have no democratic accountability, yet through the RPB they will hand 
 down allocations of the number of houses—probably the most sensitive planning issue that we face. I wonder whether that might cause widespread unrest, particularly in the south of England, which is so densely populated. I acknowledge that many extra houses will be needed there—but the Minister relies on that. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, the Bill makes a fundamental change. Such allocations used to be determined by county councils. In Gloucestershire there was a reasonable degree of consensus among the county councils and the six local authorities about where the county council's target should go. I cannot see that degree of consensus happening under the new regional structure, because it takes the decision making away from locally elected bodies. 
 If someone was dissatisfied with the targets handed out by his county council, he could easily find out who his local county councillor was. As I have already made clear, it will be much more difficult to find out who is his indirectly elected member on the regional assembly. Even when he has found out, that member will shelter under the relevant committee of the body that elected him. There must be an element of democratic deficit in the procedure that the Government are embarking upon.

Mark Francois: May I emphasise a point that I consider to be integral? Even under the current system of county structure plans, there was always a degree of haggling and horse trading about how many houses each district council should have. No one is saying that that was not a controversial process; it often was. However, because most councillors came from the same county and were relatively familiar with the areas in question, they eventually managed to broker a workable arrangement, based partly on the advantage of their local knowledge. The process will now be written for regions on a much larger scale. Many of the people taking the decisions about who will end up with so many thousands of houses in a local authority area will have little knowledge of that place or of the issues faced by the people who live there. That is a potentially dangerous move and, as my hon. Friend points out, will only increase resentment about what will be seen as a remote imposition of houses on people who do not want them to be there.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is building on what I was about to say. In practice, Gloucestershire will send its two members to the regional assembly committee that discusses the matter. They will be heavily outvoted, by 28 to two, they will go back to the county council committee that elected them, and it will ask, ''Why did you agree to this allocation of houses for Gloucestershire?'' and they will say, ''We are sorry but we were outvoted 28 to two; there was nothing we could do about it.''
 I carefully wrote down the Minister's words. He said that the regional assemblies would be accountable to constituent bodies. They will not be accountable in the slightest. The numbers are such that those bodies will simply be outvoted.

Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman not confusing the numbers presently on the indirectly elected regional assemblies and those that would be elected to a regional assembly, which are not the same? One is much larger than the other. Secondly, could he explain why the procedure that he describes is fundamentally different from what occurred, for example, under Serplan, in the south-east, where a similarly indirectly elected body was responsible for the figures as they arose at a regional level and then percolated down?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman says. In the current indirectly elected regional assemblies, there are more than 30—I accept that—but the numbers are not much greater, so the same comments apply. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, sotto voce from a sedentary position, responds immediately to the hon. Gentleman's second point by saying that the county council layer was there as a filter. While the region and the RPGs might have handed out a figure to the counties, the counties negotiated with the districts. A county is a fully elected, democratically accountable body. People can easily find out who their county councillor is and complain if they do not like what the county council has done. In Gloucestershire the system works reasonably well. The county council has a good dialogue with all six constituent local authorities, which, as the Minister made clear, have to implement the policy and decide exactly where the houses are to be sited.

Andrew Turner: In the context of the Bill, we are arguing about the difference between the current arrangement and the arrangement proposed by the Minister. However, one can think of a wealth of alternative arrangements that would be more democratic than either.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. However, we cannot consider that, as we are asked to consider only what the Government propose. That is a great pity. In that respect, it is a shame that the regions are set in stone and the regional boundaries cannot be re-examined. I am sure that by the time the Government have had a bloody nose and a few of the referendums have gone wrong, they will revert to looking at the boundaries. Then they might make them more acceptable.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh says, how the regional planning bodies draw up their regional spatial strategies is central to the Bill. If it is perceived that they are not taking full account of local people's wishes, we are in for a long period of dissatisfaction. I have listened carefully to the Minister. His arguments have been patient and cogent. However, in view of what he has said, I shall press amendment No. 272 to a vote.

Keith Hill: I want to take up a couple of factual points. First, I should inform the hon. Member for Cotswold that the regional chamber in the south-west has 117 members, not 30, so there is an opportunity for a more extensive representation of Gloucestershire than he asserted. A regional planning body of that scope has capacity for representation of, at least, a greater degree of local information, knowledge and
 sensitivity than he suggested. It is interesting that the likely size of an elected regional assembly in the same area will be 30 to 35, so democratic legitimacy may be gained at the expense of some intimate local knowledge.
 A broader point is that in the past, under the previous Administration, the Secretary of State determined the level of housing provision in the county and unitary authorities with absolutely no opportunity for public examination of those allocations. The truth is that under our arrangements there will be an examination in public and it will be a considerably more open, accessible and transparent system than ever prevailed at the time when the hon. Gentleman's party was in Government.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Two wrongs do not make a right.

Terry Rooney: So it was wrong?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would not have introduced the previous system, either.
 I ask the Minister to consider seriously how the measure will work in practice so that local people do not feel aggrieved when they suddenly find a vast housing estate at their back door, which they knew nothing about.

Alan Hurst: Does the hon. Member for Cotswold want to withdraw amendment No. 271?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 272, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end, insert 
 'if a referendum has been held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act and it has been voted in the affirmative under the provisions of that Act.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
 Question put That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Statement of development principles

Amendments made: No. 5, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 34, leave out from 'the' to 'of' in line 35 and insert 
 'principal Act after section 61D (effect of revision or revocation of development order on incomplete development) (inserted by section [Effect of revision or revocation of development order on incomplete development]'.
 No. 6, in 
clause 40, page 23, line 38, leave out '61D' and insert '61E'.—[Keith Hill.]

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 40, page 24, line 14, leave out from 'of' to end of line 15 and insert 
 '— 
 (a) the period of three years starting on the day the local planning authority issue the statement of development principles, or 
 (b) such other period starting on that day as that authority direct.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 205, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
 Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Keith Hill: I understand that in an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Cotswold put forward an amendment to clause 40. He sought to delete subsection (6) of proposed new section 61D, which states:
''If a statement of development principles is issued outline planning permission (within the meaning of section 92) must not be granted for a similar development before the end of the relevant period.''
 That period is before three weeks, or such other period as the local planning authority directs. 
 Subsection (6) was originally intended to avoid overcomplicating the planning process by preventing the situation whereby a developer can seek a statement of development principles that is followed by outline planning permission, which is then followed by an application for approval of reserved matters. However, as my predecessor on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said previously, we see merit in the earlier amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold. 
 I am aware that subsection (6) has proved unpopular. I and previous planning Ministers have received a number of representations suggesting that the provision could be used as a spoiling tactic by competitors who wish to prevent a developer from seeking outline planning permission. There have been arguments that it might be useful for a developer to hold both a statement and outline planning permission, particularly if the statement was sought at a very early stage. It has also been suggested that no one would ever apply for a statement if it prevented 
 people from subsequently applying for outline planning permission. 
 We have listened to the arguments and found them persuasive. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be able to accept amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are technical amendments brought forward as a result of amendment No. 8. The amendments do not change any of the Bill's provisions, but simply tidy up the drafting of the clause. Subsection (6), the provision which is to be removed, refers to ''the relevant period''. Following its removal, amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are needed to delete the notion of a ''relevant period'' from the remainder of the clause and instead make the durational provisions a part of new subsection (4). 
 I now turn to the non-Government amendments. May I pause for a second there, Mr. Hurst, to confirm that I am in order in continuing to speak to amendment No. 205?

Alan Hurst: The Minister should reply to it if the hon. Member who tabled it mentions it during the debate.

Matthew Green: I welcome the inclusion of Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9. There were clearly significant problems, which were highlighted by Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers in the first Committee, with the abolition of outline planning permission. The Minister has listed a number of the problems, and I welcome the amendments.
 Amendment No. 205 has been tabled by Conservative Members, and I shall be happy to listen to their arguments. I should like to ask you, Mr. Hurst, whether there is likely to be a clause stand part debate or whether I can use this group of amendments as a suitable vehicle to discuss the statement of development principles.

Alan Hurst: The hon. Gentleman would be wise to keep to the amendments. I shall make a decision during the course of the debate as to whether it will be appropriate to have a clause stand part debate.

Matthew Green: I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Hurst.
 Having dealt with one problem, the Government have got themselves into another with their amendments. The problem concerns the relevant status of outline planning permission and the statement of development principles. Let me give an example, which will not be hypothetical. A member of the public seeks to purchase a house. The investment is substantial and they want to make sure that the surrounding area will remain greenfield. New section 61D(1) states that 
''A local planning authority must issue a statement of development principles in relation to a proposed development in their area if they are requested to do so by any person.''
 The person does not have to have an interest in the piece of land in question. Somebody who is about to purchase a house could ask for a statement of development principles on the adjoining land. They could say, ''I want to know whether it is possible to build a factory or houses on that land.'' They could receive a statement of development principles from the council that stated, ''Houses will not be permitted 
 because this is greenfield.'' That would be a possible outcome of a statement of development principles. 
 The person purchases the house in those circumstances. Now outline planning permissions are back, the statement of development principles will presumably have been issued by the officers of the council. It will not have come from the committee because it is a statement of principles rather than a planning decision. A few months after the person has bought the house, the adjoining field is put up for housing and outline permission is sought. That would be contrary to the local development document, but there could be good reasons for that. Perhaps the planning committee decided to overrule their planning officers—it happens—and granted permission. To all intents and purposes, the statement of development principles, which was issued only a few months before, would be utterly worthless. 
 Somebody could make a major financial investment in an adjoining property on the grounds that the council has just issued them with a statement of development principles. That is why I ask about the status of statements of development principles and outline planning permissions or, indeed, full planning permissions. Although we know that the statement of development principles is a material consideration in a planning permission—it is not a material consideration in an outline planning permission, although the Government may want to introduce that by amending the Bill—it is only a material consideration. Of course, there are many other material considerations. 
 I urged that our debate on clause 40 was brought forward because of this genuine worry. The Government have done the right thing in allowing outline planning permission for exactly the reasons that the Minister gave. However, in doing so, they created additional problems that have not yet been thought through to ensure that the system works. 
 I understand what the Government are trying to achieve with statements of development principles, but they could be worthless—people just will not bother to apply for them—or, perhaps worse than that, they could be misleading. The Government may envisage the statements generally being sought by land developers, but I believe that people with an interest in adjoining land will be the major users. They will see a statement of development principles as a means of getting a statement about the piece of land next to them. On the basis of that they may make financial investments, borrow against it or extend their mortgage on a property. 
 All of that could be affected, because the statement of development principles is not a strong document. It does not say, ''and all planning permissions will follow in line''. Someone is fairly certain to get planning permission if they follow the conditions in an outline planning permission, which is stronger. Hence, a reason that the Minister did not give for the restoration of outline planning permission is that there are many developers whose land values are based on existing outline planning permissions. They have borrowings against them. If such permissions were, to all intents and purposes, abolished overnight, many 
 developers would suddenly discover that they were close to insolvency. That was another concern that was raised about the removal of outline planning permission. 
 The Minister has done exactly the right thing, but he has left a hole. I hope that he can find a way of closing it. The simplest way—not necessarily the way forward—would be to remove the whole clause. If there were no statements of development principles, there would still be outline planning permission, and the system would work. That is the Government's fall-back position. The system would still work if clause 40 were removed. 
 There is good intent behind the statement of development principles, but there must be a strong clarification of its status and how it relates to outline planning permission, planning permission and local development documents. A statement could be issued on a piece of land and then a revision, which, I hope, would now happen much more quickly, could be made of a local development document. If the local development document related to the piece of land, it would instantly change. At present, that can happen with a local plan, but it could take two and a half years or more—and that is quick for changing a local plan—during which period the person would have plenty of time to get involved. 
 I foresee that local development documents will move faster than that. The council could issue a statement of development principles and then begin the revision process on a local development document a month later. A year later, everything will have changed and the value of the property will have been materially affected. 
 We accept that changes in the planning system can materially affect the value of properties. The concern is that statements of development principles will give people a false sense of certainty. The relative merits of the different components of the system must be made clear.

Alan Hurst: Order. It is my intention to allow a short break from our deliberations. Accordingly, I suspend the Committee until 5.20 pm.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Opposition have received many representations on this matter. It might be worth recording what clause 40 is intended to do. The Government's explanatory memorandum states:
''Clause 40 introduces a new procedure for any person wishing to obtain an indication from a local planning authority as to whether a proposed development would be acceptable in principle. On application, an authority will be required to issue a statement of development principles which will indicate whether or not the authority agree with the principle of all or part of the proposed development. The statement will not be a consent''—
 I stress that—but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow made clear, 
''its existence will be a material consideration for the purpose of determining a future planning application for similar development.''
 While considering clause 40, we would have liked to consider my amendment No. 206. It relates to schedule 3, which abolishes section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which relates to outline planning permission. Schedule 6 also removes section 92 from the principal Act. 
 Having considered the matter, we would like clause 40 to be abolished altogether. We do not see the merits of the statement of development principles. We cannot see that it speeds up the present system or makes it more transparent, and we have had many representations in relation to that. However, having had our original amendment to abolish subsection (6) graciously accepted—that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I co-signed Government amendment No. 8; it has been a long time coming, but we won this small concession from the Government, for which I am grateful—it would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the Government's proposals in relation to abolishing outline planning permission.

Keith Hill: I shall respond to that invitation. I am aware of the anxieties of developers and house builders about statements of development principles and outline planning permissions. I know that developers see the latter as—I think the phrase has already been used—the bankable asset in the process. I am continuing to consider these matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not sure that that gets us very far. Developers will still believe that it is in the Government's mind to abolish outline planning permission. Outline planning permission has been available since 1950. It allows the planning authority to give a decision in principle and to reserve details for approval subsequently. Outline planning permission can be granted only for the erection of a building. Reserved matters include the site, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping.
 We have been told of a problem by a huge range of people. The statement of development principles is not a bankable asset. There is no certainty about it and one cannot raise finance on it. Let us consider a large-scale development: perhaps one of the supermarket chains wants to build a supermarket. It will go along to the landowner and say that it would like to do that. Under the old system, the local authority would grant outline planning permission, which would have a duration of five years. The supermarket would then be able to go away and get funding on the basis of that outline planning permission. The statement of development principles will not provide people with that certainty. Therefore, far from speeding up the system, the statement of development principles will slow it down and make matters more difficult, particularly in terms of regeneration. 
 We have received representations stating that, where it is necessary to accumulate large blocks of property to carry out urban regeneration, developers have already been through the compulsory purchase procedure that is in the Bill, and that that can sometimes take three years on its own. The developer then has to sort out whether he needs to 
 renew the consent. Permission is not straightforward or cheap, and a great deal of investment, in terms of time and money, is required to obtain it. 
 I am grateful that the Government have had a change of heart and deleted the ''lockout'' in subsection (6). It will be possible, if a statement of development principles has been issued, to obtain an outline planning permission for the time being. Those developers that have not got that far, however, will never know whether the Government will announce the abolition of the outline planning permission. In a way, the Government's lack of clarity makes the situation even more difficult. 
 I discussed another aspect of the statement of development principles with the planning officer in Wandsworth. Bearing in mind the fact that anyone can apply for a planning application on any piece of land, a number of people will visit the local planning authority to obtain a statement of development principles in order to freeze a particular piece of land and stop its future development. They know that the current council will not allow development on it, that it will produce the statement of development principles to that effect, and that no one will be able to apply for another statement or an outline planning permission for at least two years, under subsection (5). We tabled amendment No. 205, which would delete subsection (5), so that there would not be the lockout period of two years. It makes eminent sense, and I plead with with the Minister that, as well as deleting subsection (6), we should delete subsection (5).

Matthew Green: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a double danger? First, people will seek a statement of development principles to block development. Secondly, given that outline planning permission has been reinstated, anybody could obtain an outline that would overrule a statement of development principles. They would have laboured under the false sense of certainty that there would be no development. The provision is in danger of working both ways.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. His scenario is a very real possibility.
 I want to tease out why the Government have introduced the statement of development principles at all. The only reason I can think of is that there are a number of extant outline planning permissions on which development is not taking place. 
 We will discuss clause 46 and the duration of consent, but, if the Government are determined to reduce the period of consent for all planning permissions—not only outline permissions—from three to five years, they will prod a lot of people into putting more energy into developing sites. What, however, needs remedying? How many extant outline planning permissions are there; how far are they responsible for slowing down the planning system; and how will the introduction of the statement of development principles speed up the system? 
 By deleting subsection (6) and retaining outline planning permission with the statement of development principles, we have one eighth of a loaf. There is great concern among practitioners, 
 developers, retailers and wholesalers that the statement of development principles is not the answer. It will slow down the system and make it more difficult for them to develop difficult city centre sites. I have a particular worry over regeneration and assembling land with compulsory purchase when the compulsory purchase procedure is going to take a long time, and the poor developer, having got his outline planning permission, is then going to run up against time. Will he apply for another outline planning permission, or for a detailed planning permission? The uncertainty of the present situation will make things very difficult for such developers.

Andrew Turner: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and to the Committee for not having heard his first few words on the amendment, but I find the arguments against the statement of development principles not entirely convincing. I am interested in what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say. There should be a clear understanding, on purchases of land, that simply making a statement of development principles, issued on the land that surrounds it and protects the view, is worthless. The hon. Gentleman used the word ''worthless'', and let us be absolutely clear that it is indeed worthless so that no one reading this debate, as I am sure many future prospective purchasers of houses will do, reads the first part of his remarks and thinks, ''Gosh, what a jolly good wheeze'' and does not notice that it is worthless for the purposes that he described.
 When I served as a councillor, what the Government call a statement of development principles was known as a planning brief. It was drawn up by the local authority on a piece of land or small area, and set out the sort of considerations that it would have in mind should an application for that land come forward. The initiative could then be taken by a developer, who had perhaps had discussions with the planning officers behind closed doors. That was a way of bringing out into the open the element of those discussions that was of interest to local people, without disclosing what might be confidential. It had the great merit that local people did not feel that those matters were being dealt with behind closed doors, where a deal was being signed between developers and planning officers that the local people were out of until, bang, there was an outline application, or even a more detailed one. 
 Such matters were dealt with by planning committees or sometimes by the whole council—and we still did not meet for more than two half days a week. A planning brief, as we called it, would be issued that said that the council was thinking about a certain level of extra traffic, a certain sort of massing, a certain sort of landscaping, perhaps a three-storey building being reduced to two storeys where it abutted an existing listed building, and such and such a provision for car parking—car parking was quite popular with planners in those days. That gave a good picture for the planning committee to discuss. There might be consideration of transport access, bicycle parking, or footpaths and pedestrian access. 
 What happens in local authorities that do not have a development brief system? I shall tell the Committee, because mine is one. Suddenly an application pops up. It is discussed by the planners and the developer behind closed doors and the local residents are faced with a detailed planning application. I shall give an example: the Whippingham trailer park. My constituency needs a place where trailers—the back ends of articulated lorries—can be held preparatory to putting them on to ferries. A lorry cannot drive straight on to a ferry if it is not there; there must be a holding place. Both Wightlink and Red Funnel have great difficulty finding sufficient capacity at the ferry terminals in Fishbourne and East Cowes respectively for such trailer parking, because they are in the middle of towns. For a long time, there has been a need for a trailer park—a need that is recognised by the transport portfolio holder on my local authority, the transportation officers and the planning department. The only place it is not recognised is the unitary development plan. Somehow, the local authority managed to develop a unitary development plan without deciding where the trailer park would be. It was left entirely to private enterprise, to which I have no objection, to take the initiative and find a site. Presumably it has bought an option on the site. 
 We will bang in an application for that, which will be determined in six weeks, in accordance with Government guidelines. It is a detailed application. However, there has been no public consultation, and there will be none until the application is submitted. Consequently, members of the public have not had the opportunity to have their say about the level of lighting; the quality of the landscaping; whether access should be from a road called Racecourse road or from East Cowes road; or the additional traffic that will be brought into Wootton because Wootton village is between the proposed Whippingham trailer park and Fishbourne. Those issues must now be dealt with in the application. One must have good reasons to reject an application, but not to amend a planning brief. 
 All major applications of that sort would benefit from planning briefs. I accept that the Government do not propose that, but it would greatly enhance public participation in the planning process if the public could express their views on what would or would not be acceptable on a site before the formality of an application intrudes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When those proposals are submitted, the owner, or whoever is making the application for Whippingham trailer park, will go through a statement of development principles. Under the Government's comprehensive performance assessment targets, 90 per cent. of all applications will be delegated to officers—almost all statements of development principles are likely to be delegated to officers—who will then issue a statement of development principles without consulting their committees. Once they have issued those statements of development principles, with no public consultation, the committee will have great difficulty
 in turning down a full application because a statement of development principles is a material consideration.

Andrew Turner: I accept that entirely. That is why I had hoped that the officers, and the members, would not be so foolish as to delegate such sensitive requests to officers. As I understand it—the Minister is nodding; I have been told that it is useful to mention it if the Minister is nodding—it is wise that sensitive requests should not be dealt with by officers behind closed doors, but by the committee, with a full public consultation in advance.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from what I said that I do not completely oppose the concept of statements of development principles. He has done the Committee a service by outlining a way in which they could work well, although I must say that his outline is not what the Government have envisaged. He may have given them a way to introduce statements of development principles, which would work in the way that he described without the worry of whether they have any value, as I described. He may well have provided the Government and their advisers with a route forward in that difficult area.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Minister was nodding so enthusiastically that I took it to be a commitment to introduce the necessary amendments on Report. He is not nodding now.

Keith Hill: I shall never nod again.

Andrew Turner: None the less, I genuinely hope that the Minister will take that point. I had not read the clause in sufficient detail to know whether what I am saying is in line with it; that is for other Members to interpret. I hope that these statements will be encouraged and that when they are requested, their consideration will be public business. I am interested in the fact that any person can seek a statement of development principles. I am sure that we shall have interesting applications in future.

Keith Hill: Yet again, the Committee has seen the fruits of the 18 years that the hon. Gentleman spent on Oxford city council. I was genuinely interested in his reference to a planning brief. However, I am a nodder by nature—I am an empathiser. While I caution him not to read too much into my body language, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has got it right.
 We have seen in the proposal for statements of development principles benefits both for the community, in the sense that he described, and for the developer. Let me immediately offer him this reassurance and attempt to add a little more precision to it. We expect there to be the same amount of public involvement in the drawing up of statements of development principles as there is for planning applications. Indeed, requirements are set out in the draft for the part 4 regulations under the Bill. They lie in paragraph 43, which I shall quote: 
''A local planning authority must carry out the same consultation and publicity as it would for an application for planning permission.''
 That is so that its decision in respect of the statement of development principles is informed in the same way 
 as any subsequent application for planning permission. 
 A local planning authority must take into account any representations received—it is intended that there should be involvement and transparency in those matters. As well as benefits for the community, we have also seen in the proposals benefits for the developer. The clause is intended to allow potential developers to ascertain the acceptability of the principle of a proposed development on a particular site without requiring the local planning authority to examine the detail. Its purpose is similar to outline planning permission, but it does not grant the applicant any consent to do the works. It is about half way between an officer's informed view and an outline planning permission. It offers advantages over outline planning permission, where issues such as quality and design are not always considered effectively, and where there have been concerns about approval being given before an environmental impact assessment has been carried out. 
 It is our intention that the new procedure will at first supplement, and might eventually replace, outline planning permission. As we have always said, we will not abolish outline planning permission until we are sure that statements of development principles are successful. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the Committee. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about the status of a statement of development principles and possible subsequent outline planning permission. Let me try to explain. A local planning authority must, when considering an application for a statement of development principles or an outline planning permission, have regard to the development plan set out in new section 61D(2). A statement of development principles in respect of the same site would be a material consideration for a subsequent application for outline planning permission. Draft guidance explaining that further has been issued this month. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Matthew Green: I am still somewhat concerned about the status of the statement of development principles. Let me put it another way. Let us suppose that a developer were to obtain a statement of development principles, but then went for, but was refused, outline planning permission for something similar to the originally proposed project. Let us say that the officer dealt with the developer the first time, but that the committee then refused the outline planning permission, perhaps against the advice of the officer. Would there then be grounds for an appeal against the committee's decision, because there was a material consideration involved? Does the statement have weight in that sense, even if it does not have any legal weight in the sense that outline planning does in financial terms?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman asks the precise question: does the statement have weight in that sense? The answer is that it does. Outline planning permission is a planning permission, so a statement of development principles will be a material consideration for outline planning applications.
 I have attempted twice to clarify the issue. I am not sure that I can say much more than what I have said, but I have at least attempted to respond to the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It would be helpful to those listening to our debates or reading the proceedings if the Minister said why he needed to introduce the new concept. He has said that the proposals will lead to a halfway house between the officer's informal view and outline planning permission. What is the advantage of the new system, and what is the problem with the existing system?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman has heard my explanation and the interesting views of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The proposals will give the developer the benefit of exploring the possibilities of a development and understanding what conditions there may be, yet without having to work through the mass of detail and make the huge investment that an application for planning permission normally requires. The provisions will help to rationalise the process and make it more cost-efficient. They will open up the prospect of an engagement on all sides. That way, the planners, the planning committee and the would-be developer can understand what might be required without the massive investment in time, space and finance needed to work up a complete project. That is the argument.

Matthew Green: I have previously asked the Minister about a developer, and he confirmed that the developer going to an appeal would be a consideration if the application was subsequently turned out. To return to the situation that I described earlier, if an adjoining landowner or householder seeks and obtains a statement of development principles from the officer that a field will stay green field, but a month later the planning committee grants an outline or full planning permission to somebody on that land—again, perhaps against the advice of the officers—could the adjoining landowners seek judicial review, given that the Minister is not minded to favour limited third-party right of appeal? I want the system to succeed, but such cases could discredit it.

Keith Hill: Again, let me attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman by reminding him that all such developments will occur in the context of the local development framework, which we debated at considerable length in relation to new clause 49. All proposals and designations will be subject to exactly the sort of detailed process of community involvement and pre-application discussions that we have talked about already. To be frank, I find the scenario depicted by the hon. Member for Ludlow of an application out of the blue and a sudden, unexpected granting of that application improbable against the backdrop of what we have debated and what we are seeking to set in place. All I can do is repeat for the third time that the statement of development principle will be a material consideration in relation to any application.
 I will now go on to deal with amendment No. 205, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold. Amendment No. 205 would prevent a local planning authority from declining to issue a statement where it had issued a statement disagreeing with the principle of all or part of a similar development within the previous two years. 
 I can understand the concern that an authority might decline to issue a statement even where a potential developer has changed some factors of a proposed development in order to address concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement. However, it would be illogical to require an authority to deal with repeated requests for statements of development principles when, elsewhere in the Bill, we are proposing to provide them with the power to decline to determine repeated requests for planning permission. 
 If an authority issues a statement disagreeing with all or part of the proposed development it will need to include in the statement its reasons why the development is unacceptable. If a developer subsequently amends his or her proposals in order to meet these concerns, it would be unreasonable for the local planning authority to argue that the development was substantially the same and therefore decline to issue a statement. 
 By now, the Committee will have seen the secondary legislation package which accompanies part 4, which we issued for consultation on 13 October. That includes draft guidance on this point. It makes it clear that, where a potential developer has amended the proposed development in order to meet concerns raised by the local planning authority in the first statement, a local planning authority should not decline to issue a statement of development principles. 
 For that reason, which I hope reassures the hon. Member for Cotswold—who is nodding and one must always make it clear when a member of the Committee is nodding—I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have to say yes—the Minister's assurance is very helpful. It clarifies subsection (5). I want one other greater clarification from the Minister. I am sorry to labour the point, but when we have dealt with it we can move on. The Minister says that it is his intention to abolish outline planning permission at some stage, or at least that is my understanding given what he has said. Would he explain to the Committee how he will consult before taking that decision so that those using the planning system know at what point outline planning permission is likely to be abolished?

Keith Hill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a proper consultation before any such move is made, but let me say in the meantime that we intend to run the systems side by side, and it will be only when we are satisfied that the statement of relevant principles is a sustainable arrangement that we shall move over to that system. Let me also reiterate for the sake of clarity that I am aware of the
 representations and concerns that are being expressed on those matters, and I continue to take them into consideration.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had an extremely useful debate. The Minister's explanations have been very helpful. We will study his words with care. Under those circumstances, if I need to, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alan Hurst: The hon. Gentleman is right: he does not need to withdraw his amendment if it has not been moved.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 8, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.
 No. 9, in 
clause 40, page 24, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.—[Keith Hill.]
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Duration of permission and consent

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 46, page 34, line 22, leave out first 'In'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 18 to 22.

Keith Hill: Amendment No. 19 provides that where planning permission is granted and subsequently challenged in a court of law, the duration of the permission or consent will be from the date of grant until three years, or another period as directed by the determining authority, after completion of the legal proceedings. It might be helpful if I explain that in more detail.
 A decision to grant planning permission, taken by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on appeal, can be challenged in the courts. It has been suggested to us that there has been a significant rise in the number of such challenges in recent years by objectors and competitors, whose aim appears to be to delay the start of a development, or even to prevent it entirely, by running it out of time. Where a grant of planning permission is challenged, it is likely to be imprudent for the prospective developer to commence his development until the challenge has been disposed of. However, that clearly presents a potential problem, because the clause reduces the period of validity of a consent, generally from five years to three years. 
 Furthermore, the clause also prevents the renewal of planning permissions. We recognise that there may be cases in which the combined effect of these factors could unreasonably jeopardise a development. Where a decision to grant planning permission is 
 subsequently upheld by the court, it is right that the developer should be given the necessary time to implement that permission. Amendment No. 19 therefore provides for the period of consent to start again after the completion of any legal proceedings. 
 Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 19. They simply allow the provisions that I have just set out to be incorporated into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the principal Act. 
 Amendment No. 22 provides that where listed buildings consent or conservation area consent is granted and subsequently challenged in a court of law, the duration of the consent will be from the date of grant until three years, or for another period as directed by the determining authority, after the completion of the legal proceedings. The amendment applies the same provisions to listed buildings consent and conservation area consent as amendment No. 19 applies in respect of planning permission, and is being introduced for the same reasons. 
 Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment No. 22. They simply allow the provisions in that amendment to be incorporated into the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Opposition warmly welcome the amendments, as the Minister can see from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I co-signed them. They are a very useful clarification of the system. However, the same sort of argument applies to conditions. If a planning permission is granted with conditions, it can often take up to three years to fulfil them, particularly if a complex compulsory purchase is involved. The developer then runs up against the time scale. I wonder whether, under such circumstances, the extension could be extended from, for example, the date of fulfilling a particular condition if a statutory procedure, such as compulsory purchase, were involved.

Keith Hill: I have to confess to the hon. Gentleman that that is a new one on me. Without making a commitment, I will reflect on his observations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That would be helpful. I did not dream the issue up out of the blue; we have received serious representations from practitioners and developers about it. The Minister must have inspiration.

Keith Hill: Inspiration has yet again winged its way to me. I can assist the hon. Gentleman without having to reflect on his observations. I draw the attention of the Committee to the draft guidance on the part 4 regulations. In paragraph 92, entitled ''Variation from standard time limits'', it says:
''Where particularly complex development is due to take place, for example major regeneration projects, three years is unlikely to be long enough to allow developers to complete all the preparation needed before starting work. In such cases applicants should seek to agree with local planning authorities that any permission or consent 
granted should be subject to a longer time limit. Applicants are advised to discuss with local planning authorities at the earliest possible stage what time limits would be appropriate. Local planning authorities should look favourably upon requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request.''
 I am aware that that is a rather long intervention, Mr. Hurst.

Alan Hurst: Order. The Minister is making the speech.

Keith Hill: Forgive me, Mr. Hurst. I had leapt to my feet, and I was imagining—it is getting late, and we have been here a long time.
 For the record, I was for a moment unsure as to the precise nature of the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold. I would like to set the record straight in case an interested party should read the record of the proceedings. The point was not new to me; it is very important. 
 We are aware of the concern about the three-year limit in the Bill. We set it for good reasons. As the Committee is aware, there are suspicions that once permission has been granted, developers will sit on a development without taking action for an excessively long time, for a variety of reasons. That causes difficulties for other potential developments in the area, and for the general plans and purposes of local planning authorities. We think that those suspicions are right, and in introducing the time limit we are responding to the planning profession. 
 We know that there will be a number of circumstances—particularly those involving large-scale regeneration and large-scale housing developments, which require complex negotiation across a raft of issues—in which three years will be an unrealistic time scale. In such circumstances, as the guidance states, we would be open to an extension of that period. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It certainly offers considerable assistance. As always, the Minister has been very helpful. I wonder if he could be a little more specific about the circumstances under which the local authority would be expected to extend the timetable; otherwise, in practice, developers—particularly large-scale developers—would worry about not having their planning consent extended or even renewed. They would make a material start on the development, and it would lie idle while a dispute went on between the local authority and the developer, negating the benefits of the clause. If the Minister could be a little more specific, that would be helpful.

Keith Hill: I will not go down the familiar route of ''whatifery''. I am not sure that it would be helpful if I identified specific circumstances or cases. Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the purposes of the guidance. I say again:
''Applicants are advised to discuss with local planning authorities at the earliest possible stage what time limits would be appropriate.''
 We also say: 
''Local planning authorities should look favourably upon requests for longer periods of duration where there are valid planning grounds for such a request.''
 We cannot say fairer, nor be clearer, than that.

Matthew Green: I warmly welcome the Government amendments, which deal with a particular concern relating to the reduction of planning consents from five to three years. In general terms, we support that reduction. For exactly the reasons that the Minister has outlined, there have been some problems with planning consents.
 It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the reason that amendments have been tabled is that local planning authorities have not been using the powers that are currently available to them. At the moment, they can make planning permission less than or more than five years if they want to. The only problem is that the legislation gives five years as an indication. It is almost routine for local authorities to stick five years on every single application that comes forward. The concern that arose when most people read about the reduction was that where everything had got five years, everything would now get three years. 
 The legislative change is correct, but the Minister needs to do a strong selling job to local authorities to make it clear to them that they can still vary the period in both directions—from less than three years to more than three years. He has already set out the circumstances in which more than three years would be suitable. The great danger is that many planning authorities will just substitute three for five and not sufficiently follow the guidance. We need an extra strong effort to make sure that the message gets through that the duration should be suitable to the type of application.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. Section 91 of the principal Act states that five years is the maximum. It is perfectly possible for a planning authority to reduce the maximum to whatever level is reasonable under the circumstances. It is just that, as the hon. Gentleman says, it tends to use five years as a matter of course.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He is slightly wrong, as I do not think that five years is the maximum. Even under current legislation, a planning authority could in certain circumstances give planning permission with a period longer than five years, just as it will be able under this legislation to give planning permission of longer than three years. The problem has been that local authorities have been slightly lazy and just taken the figure in the 1990 Act as the figure to be followed. I can see that I am about to be corrected.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Section 91 of the principal Act states that subject to the provisions of that section
''the development to which it relates must be begun not later than the expiration of—
(a) five years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted or, as the case may be, deemed to be granted; or 
 (b) such other period (whether longer or shorter) beginning with that date as the authority concerned with the terms of planning permission may direct.''
 The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification—I am slightly relieved.
 I very much welcome the amendments, which deal with the particular position relating to a legal challenge. They make a great deal of sense. We agree with the intention to reduce most planning applications down from five to three years, but we need to get the message across to planning authorities that they have the discretion to vary. If we were quickly to ring up all planning officers and ask them what length of time a planning application could be, they would say five years without saying that they could vary it one way or the other. The great danger is that, if there is a similar ring-round a few years down the line, they will say that it should be three years and still not think that it could be varied in both directions. The message needs to get through that we must use the right length of time for each type of application and that three years is the norm but not the absolute.

Keith Hill: I am delighted to detect a powerful spirit of consensus. There is a positive love-in between the Opposition parties, both of whose distinguished representatives are experts in the matters being discussed. I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that, once liberated from these proceedings, much as I love them, I will engage in a powerful selling job with all partners: local authorities and developers.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 18, in 
clause 46, page 34, line 22, after 'permission)' insert 'is amended as follows— 
 (a)'. 
 No. 19, in 
clause 46, page 34, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(b) after subsection (3) there are inserted the following subsections— 
 ''(3A) If a decision to grant planning permission or the deemed grant of planning permission is challenged by way of judicial review or under section 288 the period of three years or other period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) begins on the day the proceedings for judicial review or under section 288 (as the case may be) are concluded. 
 (3B) Proceedings by way of judicial review are concluded— 
 (a) when permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and no further application may be made; 
 (b) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused; 
 (c) when any appeal is finally determined. 
 (3C) Proceedings under section 288 are concluded— 
 (a) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused; 
 (b) when any appeal is finally determined. 
 (3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) any power of the court to grant permission for an appeal out of time must be ignored. 
 (3E) Nothing in this section prevents the development being begun from the time the permission is granted or deemed to be granted.''.'.
 No. 20, in 
clause 46, page 34, line 40, leave out first 'In'.
 No. 21, in 
clause 46, page 34, line 41, after 'consent)', insert 'is amended as follows— 
 (a)'. 
 No. 22, in 
clause 46, page 34, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(b) after subsection (2) there are inserted the following subsections— 
 ''(2A) If a decision to grant listed building consent is challenged by way of judicial review or under section 63 the period of three years or other period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) begins on the day the proceedings for judicial review or under section 63 (as the case may be) are concluded. 
 (2B) Proceedings by way of judicial review are concluded— 
 (a) when permission to apply for judicial review has been refused and no further application may be made; 
 (b) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused; 
 (c) when any appeal is finally determined. 
 (2C) Proceedings under section 63 are concluded— 
 (a) when the court has given judgment in the matter and the time for making an appeal expires without an appeal having been made or permission to appeal is refused; 
 (b) when any appeal is finally determined. 
 (2D) For the purposes of subsections (2B) and (2C) any power of the court to grant permission for an appeal out of time must be ignored. 
 (2E) Nothing in this section prevents the works being begun from the time the consent is granted.''.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - RSS: Secretary of State's functions

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 137, in
clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert— 
 '(3) Before adopting proposals for the alteration or replacement of the RSS, the RPB shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, cause an examination in public to be held of such matters affecting the consideration of the proposals as— 
 (a) they consider ought to be examined; or 
 (b) the Secretary of State directs.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
 Amendment No. 138, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection 4.
 Government amendment No. 75. 
 Amendment No. 139, in 
clause 6, page 4, leave out line 22.

Matthew Green: Normal business will now resume; there is just over an hour to go.
 By leaving out subsections (3) and (4) and inserting a new subsection (3), amendment No. 137 is designed to ensure that an examination in public is held on any draft revision of the regional spatial strategy—yes, we are back to RSSs. Section 35B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires county councils 
 to hold a public examination of an alteration to a structure plan. The same requirement should apply to a regional planning body altering its regional spatial strategy. 
 In deciding whether a public examination is to be held, subsection 4(c) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the 
''level of interest shown in the draft''.
 I am unsure what that would mean. Would it be the number of letters of objection, the number of people attending local consultative meetings or the amount of column inches in local newspapers? It is unclear what the ''level of interest'' is. It was a major topic of discussion when I worked on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill just under a year ago. Those discussions went on for weeks, but I do not want us to go on for weeks, and we clearly cannot. I would be grateful if the Minister provided clarification. 
 Amendment No. 136 is broadly along the same lines in that it seeks to ensure a public examination. It is designed to improve public confidence in strategic planning, which is arguably the most critical level of planning for major infrastructure developments. It would also ensure that the draft was subject to effective scrutiny. That is done by removing the ''may'' and inserting ''must'', so that the examination would have to be held in public. Again, if the Minister is minded to refuse the amendments, as Ministers often are, an explanation of the likely reasons why an examination would be held in public or, more importantly, why the Secretary of State might not want to hold one in public, would be very useful. 
 Amendment No. 138 would leave out subsection (4). That would take away the Secretary of State's power to decide whether an examination in public would be held in respect of the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. Essentially, that is in line with previous amendments. If there must be an examination in public, this is the corollary amendment, which removes the Secretary of State's powers to decide which examination that is. 
 Amendment No. 139 would delete line 22, which is a separate way of trying to deal with the matter. If the Minister accepts amendment No. 138, amendment No. 139 will be superfluous, but I suspect that he probably will not, so I am giving him another chance. Amendment No. 139 would delete the caveat whereby the Secretary of State, when deciding whether an examination in public is to be held, must have regard to 
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate.''
 That is a fairly overarching power for the Secretary of State. He can clearly think that virtually any matter is appropriate or not, so that gives him carte blanche to decide whether there should be an examination in public. Essentially, he could remove paragraphs (a) to (c) because he thought that many factors were more important than his regard for those paragraphs. Effectively, paragraph (d) is a catch-all to allow the Secretary of State to make whichever decision he wishes, regardless of the position in paragraphs (a) 
 to (c). If the Minister is not minded to accept amendment No. 139, he might at least explain what some of those matters are that the Secretary of State might think appropriate—just for clarification. 
 Amendment No. 75 is a clarificatory Government amendment, which we are happy to support.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have much sympathy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, so the love-in between the Opposition parties referred to by the Minister still goes on. I am sure that it will not continue for the rest of the evening, but it does for the time being.
 Reading clause 6, I feel rather aggrieved. The Minister went at me pretty hard over independent examination and who might appear during the independent examination of local plans. Whereas I sought to put in the Bill a minor safeguard to prevent local plan inspectors from becoming absolutely swamped, under this clause there may be no right whatever to appear before an independent inspector, or to make recommendations to the Secretary of State that have to be considered. Clause 6 is pretty all-encompassing, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. I agree with him, and I would like to see subsection (4) abolished. 
 I particularly dislike subsection (4)(d), which amendment No. 139 would strike out. I dislike the subjective way in which the paragraph is written. It gives anyone who is aggrieved and has to go to a judicial review yet another hurdle to overcome. A far better and more objective direct wording, due to that additional hurdle, would be ''such other matters as are appropriate'' instead of ''he thinks appropriate''. The Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, may think anything he likes, but if one is writing legislation it should be clear and objective. Therefore, I dislike the wording in paragraph (d) and I strongly urge the Committee to support the hon. Gentleman's amendments. I hope that he presses amendment No. 137 to a Division.

Keith Hill: The intention behind amendment No. 137 seems to be to make the regional planning body, rather than the Secretary of State, responsible for organising an examination in public; it would have to organise one unless the Secretary of State directed otherwise. Matters that the RPB thought should be examined or those directed by the Secretary of State would be considered. I note that the amendment is modelled on the provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires a local planning authority to cause an inquiry or other hearing for proposals for the alteration or replacement of plans. However, it is important to remember that the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's policy and it is therefore right that responsibility for an examination in public should rest with him. Placing that responsibility on the RPB instead would not be acceptable.
 Amendments Nos. 136, 138 and 139 would restrict the Secretary of State's discretion on whether an examination in public should be held. Amendments 
 Nos. 136 and 138 would remove entirely the Secretary of State's discretion on whether an examination in public were held. The effect would be to require an examination in all cases, even for the most minor revisions to regional spatial strategy, so I cannot agree to the amendments. 
 I turn to the points made by the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Ludlow. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked what is meant by the phrase 
''the level of interest shown in the draft''.
 The answer is one of common sense. If there have been only very few representations and they have said that there has been little to object to, the Secretary of State may decide that an examination is not necessary. However, that would depend on the particular circumstances with regard to the revision of the regional spatial strategy. I repeat that the proposals are common sense. The ethos and content of the Bill are in favour of transparency and community involvement—I think that I have laboured that point almost to death.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister not see in the local plan process a huge disparity in treatment? As I understand it, every local plan document will have to be subject to an independent examination, yet the Secretary of State may or may not decide to have an independent examination of the regional plan, which, as we discussed earlier, could have huge implications for people's lives. There is a huge disparity between the two plan-making processes.

Keith Hill: I believe that the words of Ministers as recorded in Hansard are taken reasonably seriously. My words have been absolutely clear in their intent. The Bill is clear in its intent, which is in favour of the greatest reasonable involvement of the public in drawing up the regional spatial strategy and all the local development documents. I do not know what more to say, other than this: the hon. Gentleman chooses a literal interpretation of the wording of the Bill and talks about the potential arbitrary, almost despotic, response of a potential Secretary of State. The intent, ethos and character of our exchanges have demonstrated that that would not occur, but if it did there would be a variety of recourses in the public domain to challenge any such procedure.

Matthew Green: I am reassured by the tone of what the Minister says, but I do not want him to sit down before he has discussed the words
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate.''
 If he thinks that there may be things he cannot foresee in respect of paragraphs (a) to (c), but that they might come up in future, would it not be more appropriate for there to be provision for regulations allowing him to have regard to other things? As it is, the words 
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate''
 will receive no scrutiny at any point. I am a bit concerned that the clause is out of line with the tone of the rest of the Bill, in which he leaves room for regulations should new factors come in. In this example, he is not leaving it to regulations—it is entirely down to him.

Keith Hill: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the criteria set out in clause 6(4), which stipulate the considerations to which the Secretary of State must have regard when deciding whether to arrange for an examination to be held:
''(a) the extent of the revisions proposed by the draft . . . (b) the extent''
 and nature of 
''consultation on the draft before it was published''
 and 
''(c) the level of interest shown in the draft''.
 The last paragraph refers to 
''such other matters as he thinks appropriate''.
 The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Secretary of State can think that any matter is important and therefore has carte blanche to make whichever decision he wishes. However, the Secretary of State must always take account of paragraphs (a) to (c)—the first three criteria—so it is not true to say that clause 6(4)(d) gives him carte blanche. The Secretary of State must act reasonably, as I am sure any Labour Secretary of State would.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I have no doubt that he would act reasonably, and he is beginning to reassure me. It might be helpful if he made it clear whether if there were a significant ''level of interest'' in the draft, as in clause 6(4)(c), and there had not been as much consultation as would be carried out in other regions, anything else would be insignificant and the Secretary of State would feel, on the ground of reasonableness, that he would have to have a public examination.

Keith Hill: I think that the hon. Gentleman is scraping the barrel. Before I respond to that, let me deal with the suggestion that there is a disparity in treatment regarding development plan documents, which will always be subject to an examination in public. The representations made on a draft RSS revision will always be considered by the Secretary of State. The question is, does he need an examination in front of a panel to help him?
 While we are dealing with issues raised by hon. Gentlemen, another thought has sprung into my head. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about factors that the Secretary of State cannot foresee and about the Secretary of State not having the power to make regulations. The answer to that, it appears, is that he needs to make a reasonable decision at the time. 
 The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would mean that regulations would have to be made for a particular case, and might not then be relevant to all cases. Such regulations may take something—time—and may come too late to apply to a specific decision. Frankly, I could not have put it better myself. Let me go on with my view. 
 These criteria are entirely sensible and appropriate for making such a decision. In addition, draft PPS11 states that there is a strong presumption that an examination in public will be held. The Secretary of State may decide that an examination is unnecessary 
 only in the exceptional circumstances of a minor revision, and subject to the criteria that I cited earlier. It should not surprise the hon. Gentleman that, to date, the Secretary of State has never decided that a public examination is not warranted. 
 Similarly, amendment No. 139 would represent an unwarranted reduction in the Secretary of State's discretion. It would prevent him from taking other matters into account, beyond those in the Bill at clause 6(4), as he sees appropriate, when deciding whether to hold an examination in public. That seems unhelpful: we do not have particular matters in mind but the views of regional stakeholders, for example, might be relevant. 
 Government amendment No. 75 is a small but important amendment reflecting the importance that we attach to consultation within the regional planning process. It makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consider the nature, as well as the extent, of the consultation undertaken by the regional planning body. That focus on the quality as well as the quantity of consultation is reflected in the draft regulations to part 1 of the Bill and PPS11. I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will withdraw his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been trying hard and the hour is late. He is incredibly reasonable and I am sure that under his stewardship, there would be always be an examination in public, but I can foresee circumstances in which an individual, a group of individuals or perhaps even an entire local planning authority was unhappy with the regional spatial plan, particularly—reverting to the issue that we debated before the tea break—on the allocation of numbers of houses. I can foresee circumstances in which a different Secretary of State would take a fairly cavalier attitude, decide not to hold an independent examination and get away with it under the Bill.
 I do not want to labour the point but I shall quote clause 19(1) on the local plan procedure: 
''The local planning authority must submit every development plan document''—
 some of those will be fairly small— 
''to the Secretary of State for independent examination.''
 There must be an independent examination; there is no discretion in that case. Some of those are really petty matters, whereas the regional spatial strategy is a hugely important document, affecting people's lives greatly. There is a disparity in the Bill. I would not be surprised if others in another place wanted to come back to this. I cannot understand why, if the Minister is so certain that there will be consultation and an independent examination, he will not accept a change of wording in the Bill to that extent.

Matthew Green: One frustration with the debate arose when the Minister read from draft PPS11. He said:
''There is a strong presumption that an examination-in-public will be held and it is only in exceptional circumstances of a minor revision and subject to the criteria set out in clause 6(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that the Secretary of State may decide an examination is unnecessary.''
 If the Minister had responded to the debate immediately and reassured us with that significant and strong statement, which would have been on the record, many of the interventions would have been unnecessary. It is frustrating, although only a minor gripe, that in PPS11, the statement is not under the heading of ''The Examination-in-Public'', which is what we are talking about, but towards the end of the section headed ''Submission of the Draft Revision to the Secretary of State''. If I had known that, I could have avoided tabling the amendments. 
 With that statement, more than anything else that he said, the Minister has reassured me that the system will work in that there will be examinations in public in all but the most exceptional circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 75, in 
clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out 
 'to which there was any' 
 and insert 'and nature of the'.—[Keith Hill.]
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - RSS: examination in public

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in
clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (1).

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 141, in 
clause 7, page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert— 
 '(3) The person appointed by the Secretary of State shall decide who will appear in person at the examination in public.'.

Matthew Green: Although amendment No. 140 is the first in this group, it follows from the amendments in the previous group. As I accepted the Minister's assurance then, to save time I accept them in this case. I am not particularly interested in amendment No. 140 now, but I am interested in the Minister's response to amendment No. 141, because it would ensure that there was an opportunity for objectors to a draft revision of the RSS to be heard. The RSS may be more site specific than the existing regional planning guidance.
 I realise that the Minister said earlier that the RSS was not intended to be particularly site specific but it could be more so than the existing regional planning guidance, and it could have an effect on individual 
 property owners. It is essential that they should have the right to state their objections in a proposal to the RSS. If that is not allowed, there is the possibility of legal challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998, on the grounds that the individual has not had the opportunity of a fair hearing of their objections. 
 The amendment would provide a caveat, that the person appointed by the Secretary of State shall decide who will appear in person at the examination in public. That is to allow the inspector to decide that not every person with objections could be heard in public if they are essentially the same objections. I am trying to be reasonable, and not to allow an objector's charter, to use that horrible phrase again. In respect of that clarification, because the RSS could be more site specific than the existing regional planning guidance, there may be need for compliance with the Human Rights Act to allow individuals to be heard. The best person to decide that is the inspector, who is appointed by the Secretary of State.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely follow the hon. Gentleman. Amendment No. 140 was more or less dealt with in the previous discussion, but amendment No. 141 deserves a little more discussion, particularly in view of the inconsistency of the approach taken by the Minister on the new clause in my name, my proposals for an independent inquiry into local plan documents and the proposals for an independent inquiry relating to the RSS.
 Clause 7(3) states: 
''No person has a right to be heard at an examination in public.''
 Had I spotted that earlier, I would certainly have tabled an amendment to delete it or considerably amend it, because it is totally contrary to everything that the Minister has said in Committee. I hope that he will say that if an amendment to that subsection were tabled on Report, he would be minded to accept it. That said, amendment No. 141, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow spoke , is entirely reasonable. In local plans and the RSS, the person who has the say as to who can appear before the inquiry must be the independent inspector. 
 Unless we have a statement from the Minister, there will almost certainly be a challenge, again under article 6 in respect of the Human Rights Act, which I have quoted to the Committee previously. That makes it clear that every person has a right to appear at an independent inquiry or tribunal. Clause 7(3) must be completely contrary to it. I wonder how the Minister or his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, will be able to sign the certificate saying that the Bill is human rights compliant, because every Bill that goes through this place must have such a certificate. I think that there will be great difficulty with that while clause 7(3) remains in place, but I await with interest what the Minister has to say.

Andrew Turner: I am interested in the clause because what concerns me is the basis on which the inspector or whoever will decide who can appear. I assume that in this context the word ''person'' has its wider sense, which includes bodies corporate, rather than the narrower sense of mankind. The great concern that most people feel is that it is the big battalions, not the
 little people, as they sometimes describe themselves, who have the say in these matters.
 I am interested to know on what basis the Secretary of State anticipates decisions will be made if no one has a right to appear. Will it be some measure of the intensity of their opposition to the proposal under examination or, for that matter, their support for it? Will it be some measure of the extent to which they are affected by a proposal? One can well imagine that an individual will be 100 per cent. affected, whereas the local authority will be affected only in one corner by a similar blob, star or whatever symbols are used on the maps in a regional spatial strategy.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend's point is extremely pertinent. The RSS will hand down the housing targets and numbers. That is why individuals should be given every opportunity to object to those plans if they want to.

Andrew Turner: Indeed. I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend used those last few words, because the hon. Member for Ludlow, I think, originated the term ''objector's charter'' in Committee and I must ask what is wrong with or undemocratic about an objector's charter. Objection to proposals made by Government or quasi-Government bodies is the only power that individuals have. Surely we as the Opposition should be doing our best to support objectors, not to put obstacles in their way, whether the Government are composed of my right hon. and hon. Friends at some point in the next three or four years, or of Labour Members, which is the case at the moment.
 It is the function of Back Benchers to protect their constituents—and, by extension, individuals throughout the country—from the Government. It is not our function to assist the Government. Therefore, an objector's charter is exactly what we should be trying to add to the Bill. 
 I am not trying to achieve that by supporting this amendment. I am trying to draw out from the Minister the basis on which people will have the right to object. In fact, they will not have that right—he has said that they will not have the right, at least to express their objection in a meaningful sense in front of an inspector. What rights do they have? How will the Minister decide? 
 If my fellow Back Benchers and I want to do our jobs properly, we should promote an objector's charter. If that were to stand in the way of change, I would simply say, ''All change is for the worse''—I am unsure whether I have quoted Lord Eldon or my illustrious predecessor the Duke of Wellington.

Matthew Green: As the unfortunate originator of the term objector's charter in this Committee, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot agree that it is the role of Back Benchers or Opposition parties continually to find ways to slow down the system of government.

Alan Hurst: Order. That is far too philosophical a discussion.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful not to have to go down that road, not because I would not be perfectly happy to go down it, but because I was not travelling along it. My point is that it is the duty of Back Benchers of all parties to protect our constituents from over-mighty Governments of all political colours, rather than to prevent Governments from getting their business through. That is why I support the amendment, but I would like the Minister to give further information.

Keith Hill: This has been a lively little debate, and I will address some of the detail of it in due course. The hon. Member for Ludlow is right that amendment No. 140 covers the same ground as amendments Nos. 136 and 138. I am glad that he agrees. There is no point in rehearsing the discussion about this.
 I will begin by challenging the premise of the hon. Gentleman's arguments in support of amendment No. 141. He asserted that the regional spatial strategy may be more site specific than RPG and could affect individual property owners. That is wrong. PPS11 makes it clear that the regional spatial strategy should not be site specific. I will elaborate on that in due course. 
 The effect of amendment No. 141 would be to remove the provision that no one has the right to be heard at the examination in public, and instead to specify that the person appointed by the Secretary of State should decide who will appear in person. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight was most agitated. He seemed to be offering a prescription for obstructionism not to the Government but to local planning authorities, whose administrations are of a variety of party-political hues. His remarks would not be welcomed in those few authorities that are administered by the Conservative party. My own authority is administered by a Lib Dem-Tory coalition. We have seen plenty of that kind of collusion in the course of our proceedings.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Uncharacteristically, the Minister is being unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight.

Andrew Turner: We can take it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I can take it; we can all take it. However, it was worth pointing that out for the record. Not for the first time, the Minister is adopting an inconsistent approach. Surely, if he was arguing in vigour, as he was, that everybody has a right to appear in person at every inspection of every local plan document, it must be right that everybody who wants to do so may appear in person for a much more important plan, the regional spatial strategy. He cannot have it both ways. That would be totally inconsistent.

Keith Hill: I really and truly believe that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong in this regard. Local plans will impinge far more directly on individuals than regional spatial strategies, which are, by definition, of a broad, strategic nature. As I have said repeatedly and mean to say again, they will not be site specific. To that extent, although I accept that any individual may have a view about the overall strategy being articulated in the RSS, at the same time there will
 not be the direct material interest that justifies the rights of an individual to attend the examination in public of a local development plan.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Perhaps I have lost the plot. Since when has a material interest been the criterion according to which somebody can object to a local plan? I have never heard of that concept before. Let me give the Minister an example of why I think that he is wrong. Let us suppose that one of my constituents who lives in the Cotswold area of natural beauty wanted to object to the number of houses that were being imposed on the Cotswold authority that, because of planning designations, would have to go into areas that were not designated as an area of natural beauty. He would have a perfectly good reason—it would cause a big change to the area—if he wanted to object to the RSS giving the Cotswolds that number of extra houses.

Keith Hill: I have conceded that an individual might have a broad view about the contents of an RSS and might wish to make representations. There is nothing in the provisions to preclude that individual from being heard. It is just that there is not an axiomatic right for him to be heard in these matters. Let me continue, and then I shall answer some of the issues raised by Committee members.
 It is our conviction that the amendment would not enhance the drafting of the Bill. Notwithstanding the libertarian protestations of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, our proposals pursue time-honoured arrangements established by Conservative Governments of the past, in common with the arrangements for current, non-statutory RPG and structure plans. An examination in public into draft revisions to RSS will not be an examination of all the submitted proposals, nor will it be a hearing of all representations. That is appropriate, I repeat, because the purpose of an RSS is to provide a broad development strategy for the region rather than to identify specific sites for development in which individuals might have a direct interest. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary for there to be a right to be heard at the examination. The Bill needs to be clear on that point. 
 It is now and will continue to be for the person appointed by the Secretary of State to select the participants at the examination in public. That is made clear by draft PPS11 and there is no need to say so in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Gentlemen to withdraw their amendments.

Mark Francois: I am obliged to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. Could I posit a contrary case? We have already established that housing will be controversial when we put these measures into practice. I shall give a different example. Let us say that in a regional spatial strategy with transport as part of its overall purview there is a proposal to build a new motorway. The motorway will travel across several counties in the region, and a proposed route has been included in broad terms in the strategy. Many people could be directly affected by the proposal, and
 they would want to make representations about the RSS to an inquiry.
 To take another example, let us say that the RSS includes a proposal to expand a regional airport. Many thousands of people could be affected by that.

Alan Hurst: Order. I call Mr. Hill.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly fair point. In such circumstances, it would be a reasonable expectation that such interested individuals would appear at the examination. In fact, we are not discussing a denial of the right to appear but simply a requirement that not every person will have the right to appear on the basis of having made a representation. That is absolutely in accordance with existing practice.

Mark Francois: I appreciate the distinction that the Minister makes, but given that these will be regional public inquiries—if I can use that idiom—has the Minister considered the many people who would feel that they had a strong reason for making a representation? The scale of the inquiry could be very large and the duration very long to allow people to feel that they had had a fair bite of the cherry.

Keith Hill: I dare say that that is potentially the case. Let me set out for the benefit and, I hope, the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman the guidance on the selection of participants. For the general information of the Committee, paragraph 18 states that
''the choice of participants will flow from the matters selected for examination. The main criterion for selecting participants will be the significance of the contribution they can be expected to make to the discussion, having regard to their knowledge and expertise and/or the views they have already expressed. The Panel will ensure it does not invite so many participants as to preclude meaningful debate.''
 That seems entirely sensible, and the hon. Member for Cotswold should go along with it. It would be reasonable to assume that the cases identified by the hon. Member for Rayleigh would fall into the category of those who have a significant contribution to make. Therefore, it would be a reasonable expectation that they would be invited to present evidence.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I must curb the Minister on the word ''significant''. What is significant to one person may be more or less significant to someone else. That is why everyone has the right to be heard at a local planning inquiry. The same principle should apply in this case. Some people are more intelligent than others, and some are more articulate. Regardless, if they feel something strongly, they ought to have the right to be heard whether or not their contribution is significant. Clause 7(3) states:
''No person has a right to be heard at an examination in public.''
 That is a denial of some people's human rights.

Keith Hill: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In an earlier debate, he was completely against the right of every person making a representation to be heard, but now he is telling us that everybody should be heard. The hon. Gentleman alluded to human rights. Let me just say that an RSS would not contain policies that were site specific. Therefore, it would not affect an individual's property rights. To that extent, there is no conflict with the Human Rights Act. Indeed, the Government
 would not introduce legislation that was in conflict with that Act.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way again. To return to my earlier example, which he was kind enough to admit had some validity, if someone builds a motorway that runs along the bottom of one's property, that undeniably affects one's property rights. The point that I am trying to get across to the Minister is that given some of the inquiries into county structure plans that there have been in the past, an inquiry into the regional spatial strategy of a region with, say, six counties would produce, in effect, six county structure plan inquiries rolled into one. This will be a mammoth exercise, which could affect millions of people, especially given some of the examples of roads or airports that I was trying to cite. Have the Government fully thought through the scale of that undertaking, the resources that would be required to do the thing properly and the time that it would take?

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman waxes most eloquent, but I fear that he has chosen a bad example. Motorways and trunk roads are subject to a separate statutory inquiry under the highways legislation. The issue will simply not arise in connection with the RSS. I rest my case.

Matthew Green: If the Minister's advisers advise him that the RSS will not be any more site-specific than the existing regional planning guidance, who am I to say that they are wrong? They probably have more legal brains than I do, so if they are confident that they will not end up with challenges under the Human Rights Act, it is on the Government's head if they have got it wrong. I have listened to what the Minister said. It really comes down to whether or not the legal advice is correct. If it is, the Government have nothing to worry about. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - RSS: further procedure

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
clause 8, page 5, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(4A) any recommendations of the person appointed to hold the examination which he proposes to reject.'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 143, in
clause 8, page 5, line 13, at end insert— 
 'and where necessary reconstitute the examination in public.'.
 No. 144, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 17, at end add— 
 '(8) The elected Regional Assembly, or if one is not present, the Secretary of State, must publish the reasons for any changes it has made to the revised RSS when published under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (7).'.
 No. 300, in 
clause 8, page 5, line 17, at end add— 
 '(8) The Secretary of state must publish his reasons for any changes he has made to the revised RSS when published under subsection (6) and for withdrawing a draft revision of an RSS under subsection (7).'.

Matthew Green: The amendment would ensure that the elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, gives reasons for disagreeing with the recommendations of the inspector who held the examination in public on the draft revision of the RSS. The elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, has the right under the clause to override the recommendations of the inspector who held the examination in public on the draft revision of an RSS, in much the same way in which the Secretary of State has the powers to override a planning inspector's decisions in any inquiry.
 The clause requires the Secretary of State to publish any changes that he proposes to make to the draft and his reasons for doing so. However, he is not required to give reasons for his disagreeing with the inspector's recommendations. I assume that the Minister intends that to be included in the Bill. My reading of the clause may be wrong, and it may already be included. If it is not, however, the amendment would tidy up the wording of the clause. 
 Amendment No. 143 would ensure that any changes to a draft RSS proposed by the elected regional assembly or, if one is not present, the Secretary of State, to which there are objections, may also be reviewed by an examination in public. The Secretary of State can require the draft revision of an RSS to be subject to examination in public. However, there is no equivalent for an examination in public of any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft, whether or not an examination in public has been held on it. If the Secretary of State makes substantive changes following changes to the draft, there is no requirement for there to be public consultation on those changes. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is because he has to be reasonable all the time. Frankly, there is no come back here. Essentially the amendment would ensure that members of the public have as much opportunity to be heard on the proposal of the elected regional assembly or the Secretary of State on the draft revision as they will on the regional planning body's initial draft revision. 
 Amendment No. 144 is designed to ensure that the elected regional assembly or the Secretary of State give their reasons for decisions about the revision of the regional spatial strategy. Clause 8 requires the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any changes that he proposes to make to the draft revision of the RSS. That duty to give reasons should also apply when the Secretary of State publishes the final revision and when he withdraws the draft revision of the RSS. Again, I hope that these amendments clarify the actions of the Secretary of State. I would struggle to imagine that the Minister could disagree with their intention. As usual, I will probably be told that they are entirely unnecessary.

Keith Hill: Allow me, Mr. Hurst, to remind the Committee of the purport of the amendments.
 Amendment No. 142 would require the Secretary of State to publish any recommendation of the person appointed to hold the examination that he proposed to reject. Amendment No. 143 would require the Secretary of State, when considering representations on proposed changes to draft revisions, to reconstitute the examination in public where necessary. Amendment No. 144 would require an elected regional assembly to give reasons for any changes that it has made to an RSS after the examination in public or if it proposes to withdraw a draft RSS. The duty would fall on the Secretary of State if there were no elected regional assembly.
 It may help the Committee if I explain what will happen with the report of the person holding the examination and any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make to the draft revision of the RSS prepared by the RPB. People and bodies that make representations on the RPB's draft revision are likely to propose a wide variety of changes. The examination will consider the most important issues raised. Clause 8(2) requires the Secretary of State to consider not only the report of the person appointed, but those representations that that person has not considered, so his proposed changes will be influenced by more than just the recommendations in the report. 
 The report of the examination will certainly be published. Both the Secretary of State and the RPB must publish any changes that the Secretary of State proposes to make under the regulations for part 1 of the Bill. That comes in regulation 13.

Andrew Turner: The Minister says that he must take account of representations that the inspector has not taken into account. Does he have to or is he entitled to reconsider representations that the inspector has taken into account? May he only consider the inspector's report on those representations?

Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat that?

Andrew Turner: The Minister said that the Secretary of State was entitled to take account of representations that the inspector had not taken into account. I asked whether the Secretary of State is entitled to take account of representations that the inspector has taken into account or is he merely entitled to take account of the inspector's report on those representations?

Keith Hill: The answer to the first part of the choice that the hon. Gentleman posed is yes. That is for the record. If there is likely to be a long delay between the submission of the report and the publication of proposed changes, the report may be published at the same time, as people will want to know what changes are made in the light of it.
 Clause 8(3) requires the Secretary of State to publish his proposed changes and reasons. Under the proposed regulations, the Secretary of State and the RPB are required to publish not only an explanation of the changes made, but decisions not to make changes recommended in the report. The Secretary of State will also send these changes and reasons to statutory consultees and others who made representations on the RPB's draft revision. The 
 regulations also provide for comments to be made on the Secretary of State's proposed changes. 
 Following the consultation on the proposed changes, the Secretary of State will issue final revision to the RSS. [Interruption.] Forgive me, Mr. Hurst, it is that time in the Committee's proceedings when I must collect myself. The Bill, regulations and the procedural policy and guidance set in draft PPS11 on regional planning provide robust and transparent arrangements for the process. It should already be clear why amendment No. 142 is not necessary. I wish in many respects that I could sit down now, but I am aware that I also need to address amendment No. 143. 
 Amendment No. 143 is about having a further examination in public to look at representations on the Secretary of State's proposed changes. I do not agree with that approach for two reasons. First, most of the changes that the Secretary of State will propose will flow from the appointed person's report. The presumption is that the Secretary of State will amend the draft RSS revision in accordance with that report, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise. Other, more minor changes may arise from representations that are not considered in the report. If the changes arise from the report, the issues will already have been considered at the examination. Therefore, representations on proposed changes will normally be in relation to matters already considered at the examination and will thus not need a further examination; or, if the representations arise in relation to the more minor changes, they are likely to be more minor, not warranting an examination. 
 Secondly, a further examination into the same proposed changes may not be the most sensible way to proceed in the unlikely event that a major new issue arises after the Secretary of State's proposed changes have been published. An example might be the emergence of a radically different regional economic strategy produced by the regional development agency. If that happens, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether a further round of consultation can accommodate it, or whether the change is so fundamental that the regional planning body will need to produce a new draft revision. If the latter, clause 8(7) provides for the Secretary of State to withdraw the draft revision. The regional planning body would be able to look at the proposals in the light of the new information and prepare a new draft revision, which can then go through the examination process afresh. 
 I have already dealt with the reasons for changes, which the first part of amendment No. 144 raises. The second part would require the Secretary of State, where there was no elected regional assembly, to give reasons for withdrawing a draft RSS. The approach that we have adopted throughout parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is that for the more significant, substantive powers of the Secretary of State, it is right to place in the Bill a duty to give reasons. For example, when the Secretary of State proposes any changes to a draft revision of the RSS, he must give his reasons why, under clause 8(3). That is important because the final published version will form part of the development plan. Given the significant substantive nature of those powers, it is 
 appropriate for the giving of reasons to appear in the Bill. In addition, if anyone is aggrieved by the policies in an RSS revision or the reasons given for it, they can challenge the validity of the revision under clause 78. 
 However, if the Secretary of State decides to withdraw a draft revision, it is essentially procedural, and it is unnecessary to publish the reasons in the Bill. That is similar to the current provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, whereby the Secretary of State has various powers of direction for which there is no statutory requirement to give reasons. For example, he has no statutory requirement to give reasons when he calls in proposals in a local plan for his approval under section 44, although it is our policy that the Secretary of State would provide reasons, unless they were obvious. 
 Any exercise of those powers could be challenged by way of judicial review, and any arbitrary exercise of power would risk a successful challenge. For those reasons, any Minister would sensibly explain why he was exercising the power. As I have explained, the Government seek to provide reasons for their decisions, as a matter of good practice. The amendment understandably seeks safeguards around the exercise of the power to withdraw. However, there are sufficient safeguards within our system of administrative law and practice, which make it unnecessary. 
 If it were not obvious why the draft revision was being withdrawn, consideration would be given to publishing the reasons why. Nevertheless, I undertake to the Committee to reconsider whether we need to clarify that point in the final version of PPS11 and possibly provide for it in regulations, as we have when the RPB withdraws a draft revision. 
 I fear that I have burdened the Committee with a lengthy response but these are serious matters. I urge the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: We have had a full and cogent response to amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I am sure that when I consult Hansard I will read a very cogent response to amendment No. 142.

Mark Francois: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister, in his reply, played a very straight bat, even if he did not always manage to maintain a very straight face?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
 I am particularly reassured by the Minister's final point. He always saves the best points to the end—they must be written to save up the punch line. I am reassured by the fact that he will consider my point, with particular regard to the Secretary of State's powers, in his revisions to draft PPS11. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Regulations

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
clause 10, page 6, line 13, at end insert— 
 '(ba) requirements about inspection by the public of a draft revision or any other document;'.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 76 to 78 and 91 to 94.

Keith Hill: It is my pleasure to move the amendment, which concerns the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations governing the application of parts of the new arrangements for regional and local planning under parts 1 and 2.
 Amendment No. 76 would make express provision for regulations that set out requirements about inspection by the public of a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy or any other document. Amendment No. 92 is the equivalent for local development documents or any other documents under part 2. 
 One of our main aims in the reforms is to secure effective and robust opportunities for the public to engage with the new planning system, and the amendments help to achieve that. We have set out in draft the regulations that we intend to make. The provisions will ensure that there is consistency across the country to a reasonable standard based on current good practice. The public and others with an interest can have confidence in the new arrangements. 
 Amendments Nos. 77 and 93 provide for regulations under clauses 10 and 35 respectively to determine the time at which actions must be performed. The amendment is intended to provide proper flexibility to regional planning bodies and local planning authorities to move forward quickly the preparations of draft revisions to the regional spatial strategy and local development documents while safeguarding people's rights to be involved. The provisions cover the time at which representations on a draft revision of an RSS must be made. The RPB can determine that time, which must be not less than 12 weeks or, where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that a draft revision constitutes a minor amendment to the RSS, not less than six weeks. 
 Amendments Nos. 78 and 94 would allow RPBs and local planning authorities to make a reasonable charge for providing copies of documents that they are required to publish under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill or by regulation. As is currently the case, it is sensible that RPBs and local planning authorities should be able to recoup at least part of the costs of publishing documents should they choose to do so. Amendments Nos. 91 and 95 are simply intended to ensure consistency between parts 2 and 6 of the Bill. Amendment No. 91 would create a power in clause 35 for regulations to set up procedures for the preparation of local development documents. There is already such a power in part 6. 
 Amendment No. 95 provides for regulation under clause 71 to establish the detail of the nature and extent of consultation with and participation by the 
 public in actions taken under part 6. That simply brings the arrangements for Wales into line with those for England. I notice a frisson of gratification among Welsh colleagues in Committee—it is my pleasure to have introduced that measure. There is already such a provision in clause 35. 
 With the exception of the Welsh provision, the amendments are not exciting, but they are nevertheless important and it was important for me to offer a proper explanation to the Committee. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 77, in clause 10, page 6, line 21, at beginning insert 'the determination of'. 
 No. 78, in 
clause 10, page 6, line 24, at end add— 
 '( ) the making of reasonable charges for the provision of copies of documents required by or under this Part.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Supplementary

Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
clause 11, page 6, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for the time being having general responsibility for policy in relation to the development and use of land.'.
 Clause 1(2) requires the RSS to set out the Secretary of State's policies, however they are expressed, in relation to the development and use of land in the region. Amendment No. 79 prevents clause 1(2) from requiring policies prepared by any other Secretary of State to be included in the RSS if those policies relate to the development and use of land within the region. It has always been the intention that the RSS should set out the policies of the Secretary of State with general policy responsibility for planning, and not the policies of, for example, the Secretary of State for Health or the Secretary of State for Transport that relate to but are not primarily about land use or development. The amendment ensures that there is no confusion. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before we dispose of clause 11, I would like to probe the Minister on what is meant by clause 11(2), which states:
''But the Secretary of State may by order direct that if the area of a National Park falls within more than one region it is treated as falling wholly within such region as is specified in the order.''
 It just so happens that the Peak District national park falls in four different regions. I wondered what criteria the Minister will use when making such an order.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The clause enables the Secretary of State by order to direct that a national park that falls within more than one region is to be treated as falling within the regions specified in the order. That is necessary to
 ensure that all strategic policies relating to a national park area can be found in one place rather than fragmented among different regional spatial strategies. As to the criteria that will be employed to identify the region within which the interests of the national park will be expressed, I shall undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out those criteria. I am grateful to him for having raised the matter.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Keith Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. I am delighted to be able to raise this point of order to express my thanks to a range of persons in the Committee. First, on behalf of the entire Committee I express our thanks to you and to your colleagues for their excellent, wise and tolerant chairmanship. I also express a genuine word of thanks for their support, not least their patience, during the proceedings. I offer a particular word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark), the Government Whip on the Committee, and I would like to extend that to all the usual channels involved in the Committee.
 I would also like to express my thanks to the Opposition. I thank both parties for their courtesy, open-mindedness and generosity towards myself in a variety of circumstances, and I thank them for the extremely serious and responsible way in which they have contributed to our proceedings. I express the thanks of the Committee to the Clerks, who have served us well, the Hansard Reporters, the Badge Messengers and the police officers who have supervised our proceedings. 
 Finally, I express my thanks to the silent ones—those who officially do not exist, but without whom a Minister would in reality scarcely exist, or at least not for very long. They have proved a consistent inspiration throughout the proceedings.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hurst. I wish to associate myself with all the Minister's remarks. I would also like to say that it is very nice to see that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton did manage to turn up today for the second time. I thank my colleagues for their contributions, particularly the silent one, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh, although he was not so silent at times. He made some very good points. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Hurst, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Pike, for all your forbearance.
 I would like to thank the Minister. He has almost always—apart from the odd occasion when we pushed him to the limit—behaved with courtesy and great generosity in giving way. I would also like to thank the Clerks. They have been unfailingly helpful over a long period of time, and have had a huge work load. I would like to thank Hansard, and the Badge Messengers and the police for keeping us all safe. Let us hope that we get this Bill on to the statute book—although having said that, I am sure that it will need a little more amendment.

Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Hurst. I would like to associate myself with all the remarks. I particularly want to express warm thanks to you and Mr. Pike for the way in which you have chaired the Committee and, at times, kept us in order when we have strayed from the straight and narrow and the subject under discussion. I particularly thank the Minister—in fact, all the Ministers, although, sadly, one of the Ministers, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, never got to say a word.

Alan Hurst: First, those were not points of order, but they were duly appreciated. Secondly, as it is half-past 7, I have to put the questions necessary under the terms of the programme resolution to complete the proceedings.
 Clauses 15 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Intervention by Secretary of State

Amendments made: No. 2, in 
clause 20, page 12, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(2A) But subsection (2) does not apply if the Secretary of State withdraws the direction.'
 No. 84, in 
clause 20, page 12, line 14, leave out from 'document' to 'must' and insert 
 'but before the person appointed to carry out the examination has made his recommendations he'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 20, as amended, and clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Revocation of local development document

Amendment made: No. 86, in 
clause 24, page 14, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(b) may prescribe descriptions of local development document which may be revoked by the authority themselves.'—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 24, as amended, and clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Secretary of State's default power

Amendment made: No. 3, in 
clause 26, page 14, line 39, leave out 'local development' and insert 'development plan'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 26, as amended, and clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Joint committees

Amendments made: No. 88, in 
clause 28, page 16, line 23, at end insert— 
 '(b) may apply (with or without modifications) such enactments relating to local authorities as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.'
 No. 89, in 
clause 28, page 17, line 4, at end insert— 
 '( ) For the purposes of subsection (4) a local authority is any of the following— 
 (a) a county council; 
 (b) a district council; 
 (c) a London borough council.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 28, as amended, and clauses 29 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Annual monitoring report

Amendment made: No. 90, in 
clause 34, page 18, line 31, at end insert— 
 '( ) be in respect of such period of 12 months as is prescribed;'—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Regulations

Amendments made: No. 91, in 
clause 35, page 19, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(ab) the procedure to be followed in the preparation of local development documents;'.
 No. 92, in 
clause 35, page 19, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(ba) requirements about inspection by the public of a local development document or any other document;'.
 No. 93, in 
clause 35, page 19, line 11, at beginning insert 'the determination of'
 No. 94, in 
clause 35, page 19, line 15, at end insert— 
 '( ) the making of reasonable charges for the provision of copies of documents required by or under this Part.'—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 35, as amended, and clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Simplified planning zones

Amendment made: No. 12, in 
clause 44, page 32, line 4, leave out 'satisifed' and insert 'satisfied'.—[Keith Hill.] 
Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Appeal made:

Amendments made: No. 13, in 
clause 45, page 33, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 34. 
No. 14, in 
clause 45, page 34, line 17, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In the listed buildings Act after section 20 (right to appeal) there is inserted the following section— 
 ''20A Appeal made: functions of local planning authorities 
 (1) This section applies if a person who has made an application mentioned in section 20(1)(a) appeals to the Secretary of State under section 20(2). 
 (2) At any time before the end of the additional period the local planning authority may give the notice referred to in section 20(2). 
 (3) If the local planning authority give notice as mentioned in subsection (2) that their decision is to refuse the application— 
 (a) the appeal must be treated as an appeal under section 20(1) against the refusal; 
 (b) the Secretary of State must give the person making the appeal an opportunity to revise the grounds of the appeal; 
 (c) the Secretary of State must give such a person an opportunity to change any option the person has chosen relating to the procedure for the appeal. 
 (4) If the local planning authority give notice as mentioned in subsection (2) that their decision is to grant the application subject to conditions the Secretary of State must give the person making the appeal the opportunity— 
 (a) to proceed with the appeal as an appeal under section 20(1) against the grant of the application subject to conditions; 
 (b) to revise the grounds of the appeal; 
 (c) to change any option the person has chosen relating to the procedure for the appeal. 
 (5) The Secretary of State must not issue his decision on the appeal before the end of the additional period. 
 (6) The additional period is the period prescribed for the purposes of this section and which starts on the day on which the person appeals under section 20(2).''.'.
 No. 15, in 
clause 45, page 34, line 18, leave out from 'to' to 'which' in line 19 and insert 'relevant applications'.
 No. 16, in 
clause 45, page 34, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The following are relevant applications— 
 (a) an application mentioned in section 78(1)(a) of the principal Act; 
 (b) an application mentioned in section 20(1)(a) of the listed buildings Act; 
 (c) an application mentioned in section 20(1)(a) of the listed buildings Act as given effect by section 74(3) of that Act (application of certain provisions to the control of demolition in conservation areas).'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 45, as amended, and clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 48 - Duty to respond to consultation

Amendments made: No. 38, in 
clause 48, page 36, line 11, leave out from ', order' to the end of line 12.
 No. 39, in 
clause 48, page 36, leave out lines 13 and 14.
 No. 40, in 
clause 48, page 36, leave out line 15 and insert— 
 '( ) A development order may— 
 ( ) require consultees to give the appropriate authority a report as to their compliance with subsection (4);'
 No. 41, in 
clause 48, page 36, leave out line 18.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 48, as amended, clauses 49 to 53 and clauses 56 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Intervention by Assembly 
 Amendment made: No. 23, in 
clause 59, page 42, line 38, at end insert— 
 '(2A) But subsection (2) does not apply if the Assembly withdraws the direction.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 59, as amended, and clauses 60 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Regulations

Amendments made: No. 95, in 
clause 71, page 46, leave out line 28 and insert— 
 '(e) the nature and extent of consultation with and participation by the public in anything done under this Part;'.
 No. 96, in 
clause 71, page 46, line 34, at end insert— 
 '(ia) the manner of publication of any draft, report or other document published under this Part;'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 71, as amended, and clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Examinations

Amendment made: No. 28, in 
clause 79, page 56, leave out lines 29 and 30.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Grants for advice and assistance

Amendments made: No. 48, in 
clause 80, page 56, line 39, at end insert— 
 ''(c) the enactments mentioned in subsection (1A).''
 No. 49, in 
clause 80, page 56, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(1A) The enactments are enactments which relate to planning contained in the following Acts— 
 (a) the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; 
 (b) the Transport and Works Act 1992; 
 (c) the Environment Act 1995.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
Clause 80, as amended, and clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 330, in 
clause 82, page 57, line 29, at end insert— 
 '(8) The Scottish planning Acts are— 
 (a) the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.8); 
 (b) the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.9); 
 (c) the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.10); and 
 (d) the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.11).'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 82, as amended, and clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Transitionals

Amendment made: No. 331, in 
clause 84, page 58, line 2, at end insert— 
 '(2) The Scottish Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament, make such transitional provision for Scotland, corresponding to the provisions of Schedule (Transitional provisions: Crown application) and to section 30B of the hazardous substances Act (inserted by section (Crown application of planning Acts)(3)) as they consider necessary or expedient.'—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 84, as amended, and clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Commencement

Amendments made: No. 113, in 
clause 86, page 58, line 7, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (4)'.
 No. 114, in 
clause 86, page 58, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(4) In Schedule 4, paragraph 7A comes into force at the end of the period of two months starting on the day this Act is passed.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - Regulations and orders

Amendments made: No. 332, in 
clause 87, page 58, line 37, at end insert 'or 84(2)' 
No. 29, in 
clause 87, page 58, line 38, leave out 
 'which does not include provision under subsection (3)(b) above' 
 and insert 
 'to which subsection (6) applies'.
 No. 30, in 
clause 87, page 58, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(6) This subsection applies to an order which does not contain provision amending or repealing an enactment contained in an Act.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 87, as amended, and clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Extent

Amendments made: No. 56, in 
clause 89, page 59, line 10, at beginning insert— 
 '(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section,'.
 No. 333, in 
clause 89, page 59, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(2) Sections 84(2) and 85, this section, section 90 and Schedules 4 and 6 extend also to Scotland. 
 (3) Sections (Enforcement in relation to Crown land: Scotland), (Urgent development: Scotland), (Urgent works relating to Crown land: Scotland), (Special provision for certain circumstances where disclosure of information as to national security may occur: Scotland),(Crown application of Scottish Planning Acts), (Tree preservation orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners 
interested: Scotland), (Trees in conservation areas in Scotland: acts of the Crown), and 82(8) and Schedule (Crown application: Scotland) extend to Scotland only. 
 (4) The extent of any amendment, repeal or revocation made by this Act is the same as that of the enactment amended, repealed or revoked.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 89, as amended, clause 90 and schedule 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Amendments of the planning Acts

Amendments made: No. 31, in 
schedule 3, page 63, line 25, leave out '61D' and insert '61E'.
 No. 32, in 
schedule 3, page 64, line 22, at end insert— 
 '4A In section 108 (compensation for refusal of planning permission formerly granted by development order) after subsection (3) there is inserted the following subsection— 
 ''(3A) This section does not apply if— 
 (a) development authorised by planning permission granted by a development order or local development order is started before the permission is withdrawn, and 
 (b) the order includes provision in pursuance of section 61D permitting the development to be completed after the permission is withdrawn.''.'.
 No. 58, in 
schedule 3, page 64, line 22, at end insert— 
 '(1) In section 245 (modification of incorporated enactments), subsections (2) and (3) are omitted. 
 (2) The amendments made by subparagraph (1) do not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph.'
 No. 50, in 
schedule 3, page 67, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 and insert— 
 '(1) Section 333 (provision about regulations and orders) is amended as follows. 
 (2) After subsection (2) there is inserted the following subsection— 
 ''(2A) Regulations may make different provision for different purposes.''.'.
 No. 33, in 
schedule 3, page 67, line 15, at end insert— 
 '14A (1) Schedule 13 (blighted land) is amended as follows. 
 (2) Paragraphs 1 to 4 are omitted. 
 (3) The following paragraph is inserted as paragraph 1A— 
 ''1A Land which is identified for the purposes of relevant public functions by a development plan document for the area in which the land is situated. 
 Notes 
 (1) Relevant public functions are— 
 (a) the functions of a government department, local authority, National Park authority or statutory undertakers; 
 (b) the establishment or running by a public telecommunications operator of a telecommunication system. 
 (2) For the purposes of this paragraph a development plan document is— 
 (a) a development plan document which is adopted or approved for the purposes of Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003 (in this paragraph, the 2003 Act); 
 (b) a revision of such a document in pursuance of section 25 of the 2003 Act which is adopted or approved for the purposes of Part 2 of the 2003 Act; 
 (c) a development plan document which has been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination under section 19(1) of the 2003 Act; 
 (d) a revision of a development plan document in pursuance of section 25 of the 2003 Act if the document has been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination under section 19(1) of that Act. 
 (3) But Note (2)(c) and (d) does not apply if the document is withdrawn under section 21 of the 2003 Act at any time after it has been submitted for independent examination. 
 (4) In Note (2)(c) and (d) the submission of a development plan document to the Secretary of State for independent examination is to be taken to include the holding of an independent examination by the Secretary of State under section 20 or section 26 of the 2003 Act.'' 
 (4) In paragraph 5 for ''any such functions as are mentioned in paragraph 1(a)(i) or (ii)'' there is substituted ''relevant public functions (within the meaning of paragraph 1A)''. 
 (5) In paragraph 6 for ''any such functions as are mentioned in paragraph 5'' there is substituted ''relevant public functions (within the meaning of paragraph 1A)''. 
 (6) In paragraph 13, for ''paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4'' there is substituted ''paragraph 1A''.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4

Amendments of other enactments 
 Amendments made: No. 59, in 
schedule 4, page 68, line 37, at end insert— 
 'Countryside Act 1968 (c.41) 
 (1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Countryside Act 1968 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In subparagraph (2), after ''published'' there is inserted '', affixed''. 
 (3) In subparagraph (4)(a), after ''published'' there is inserted '', affixed''. 
 (3) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph.'
 No. 60, in 
schedule 4, page 69, line 29, at end insert— 
 'Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c.70) 
 (1) Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 is amended as follows. 
 (2) Paragraph 2 is omitted. 
 (3) In paragraph 3, in subparagraph (1)(c), for ''section 13 of that Act to objections made by an owner, lessee or occupier'' there is substituted ''sections 13 and 13A of that Act to relevant objections''. 
 (4) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph. 
 Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) 
 (1) The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 142 (acquisition by corporation), in subsection (2A), ''(subject to section 144(2))'' is omitted. 
 (3) In section 143 (acquisition by local highway authority), in subsection (3A), ''(subject to section 144(2))'' is omitted. 
 (4) In section 144, in subsection (2), ''the 1981 Act and'' is omitted. 
 (5) In Schedule 28, in paragraph 1, ''The 1981 Act and'' and the words from ''and in paragraph 2'' to the end are omitted. 
 (6) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph.'
 No. 115, in 
schedule 4, page 69, line 29, at end insert— 
 'Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) 
 7A In Schedule 26 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Urban Development Corporations), after paragraph 14 there are inserted the following paragraphs— 
 ''Delegation of planning functions 
 14A (1) This paragraph applies in relation to any function conferred on the corporation by virtue of an order under section 149 above. 
 (2) The corporation may appoint committees and such committees may appoint subcommittees. 
 (3) Anything which is authorised or required to be done by the corporation— 
 (a) may be done by any member of the corporation or of its staff who is authorised for the purpose either generally or specifically; 
 (b) may be done by a committee or subcommittee which is so authorised. 
 (4) The corporation may— 
 (a) determine the quorum of a committee or subcommittee; 
 (b) make such arrangements as it thinks appropriate relating to the meetings and procedure of a committee or subcommittee. 
 (5) Anything done for the purposes of subparagraph (4) is subject to directions given by the Secretary of State. 
 (6) The validity of anything done by a committee or subcommittee is not affected by— 
 (a) any vacancy among its members; 
 (b) any defect in the appointment of any of its members. 
 (7) This paragraph does not extend to Scotland. 
 14B (1) This paragraph has effect in relation to the membership of committees and subcommittees appointed under paragraph 14A. 
 (2) A committee may consist of— 
 (a) such members of the corporation as it appoints; 
 (b) such other persons as the corporation (with the consent of the Secretary of State) appoints. 
 (3) A subcommittee of a committee may consist of— 
 (a) such members of the committee as it appoints; 
 (b) such persons who are members of another committee of the corporation (whether or not they are members of the corporation) as the committee appoints; 
 (c) such other persons as the corporation (with the consent of the Secretary of State) appoints. 
 (4) The membership of a committee or subcommittee— 
 (a) must always include at least one person who is a member of the corporation; 
 (b) must not include any person who is a member of the staff of the corporation.'''.
 No. 61, in 
schedule 4, page 69, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 32 and insert 'The Highways Act 1980'.
 No. 62, in 
'schedule 4, page 69, line 33, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section 232'.
 No. 63, in 
schedule 4, page 69, line 35, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section 232'. 
No. 64, in 
schedule 4, page 69, line 41, at end insert— 
 ' (4) Section 259 (power to confirm, etc, compulsory purchase order in part) is omitted. 
 (5) The amendment made by subparagraph (4) does not apply to a compulsory purchase order of which notice under section 11 of or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before the commencement of that subparagraph.'
 No. 65, in 
schedule 4, page 69, line 41, at end insert— 
 'Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (c.67) 
 In section 29(5) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for the words '' any reference to any owner, lessee or occupier'' there are substituted the words ''the reference to a qualifying person for the purposes of section 12(2)''.
 No. 66, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 1, at beginning insert— 
 'Housing Act 1985 (c.68) 
 (1) In section 578A of the Housing Act 1985 (modification of compulsory purchase order in case of acquisition of land for clearance), in subsection (2), for ''section 13'' there is substituted ''sections 13 to 13C''. 
 (2) The amendment made by subparagraph (1) does not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph. 
 'Education Reform Act 1988 (c.40) 
 (1) The Education Reform Act 1988 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 190 (wrongful contracts or disposals), in subsection (6) for the words from ''references'' to the end there is substituted ''the reference in section 12 of that Act to an owner of the land included reference to the London Residuary Body''. 
 (3) In section 201 (wrongful disposals), in subsection (6), for the words from ''references'' to the end there is substituted ''the reference in section 12 of that Act to an owner of the land included reference to the local education authority concerned''. 
 (4) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph. 
 Housing Act 1988 (c.50) 
 (1) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Housing Act 1988 (modifications of Acquisition of Land Act 1981) is omitted. 
 (2) The amendment made by subparagraph (1) does not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph.'
 No. 67, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 6, at end insert— 
 'Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (c.28) 
 (1) Schedule 20 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (modification of Acquisition of Land Act 1981) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In paragraph 1, for ''modifications specified in paragraphs 2 and'' there is substituted ''modification specified in paragraph''. 
 (3) Paragraph 2 is omitted. 
 (4) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice under section 11 of or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 is published before commencement of this paragraph.'
 No. 51, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 8, leave out from beginning to '(which' and insert— 
 '(1) The Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 67'.
 No. 52, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(3) In Schedule 14 (periodic review of mineral planning permissions) in paragraph 2(1), in the definition of ''first review date'', for ''paragraph 5'' there is substituted ''paragraphs 3A and 5''. 
 (4) In Schedule 14 after paragraph 3 there is inserted the following paragraph— 
 ''3A (1) The Secretary of State may by order specify a first review date different from the first review date found in pursuance of paragraph 3(1) or (2). 
 (2) Subparagraph (3) applies if no first review date is found in pursuance of paragraph 3(1) or (2). 
 (3) The Secretary of State may by order specify a first review date. 
 (4) An order under subparagraph (3) may make different provision for different cases or different classes of case. 
 (5) An order under this paragraph must be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''.'.
 No. 68, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 10, at end insert— 
 'Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c.45) 
 (1) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (modifications of Acquisition of Land Act 1981) is omitted. 
 (2) The amendment made by subparagraph (1) does not apply to compulsory purchase orders of which notice has been published under section 11 of or, as the case may be, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 before commencement of this paragraph.'
 No. 334, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 10, at end insert— 
 'Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 
 In section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (regulations and orders), after subsection (2) there is inserted— 
 ''(2A) Regulations may make different provision for different purposes.''.'.
 No. 97, in 
schedule 4, page 70, line 12, leave out from beginning to '(Mayor' and insert— 
 '(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 337 (publication)— 
 (a) for ''relevant regional planning guidance'' there is substituted ''the regional spatial strategy for a region which adjoins Greater London''; 
 (b) subsection (10) is omitted. 
 (3) In section 342(1) (matters to which Mayor is to have regard) for paragraph (a) there is substituted the following— 
 ''(a) the regional spatial strategy for a region which adjoins Greater London;'' 
 (4) In section 346(b)'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 - Transitional provisions: Parts 1 and 2

Amendments made: No. 98, in 
schedule 5, page 70, line 29, after 'area' insert 'for'.
 No. 99, in 
schedule 5, page 72, line 11, leave out 
 'commencement of Part 2 of this Act' 
 and insert 'relevant date'.
 No. 100, in 
schedule 5, page 72, line 15, leave out 
 'beginning of the prescribed period' 
 and insert 
 'commencement of Part 2 of this Act'.
 No. 101, in 
schedule 5, page 72, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert— 
 '( ) The relevant date is whichever is the later of— 
 (a) the end of any period prescribed by regulations under section 26 of the principal Act for the making of objections to the proposals; 
 (b) the commencement of Part 2 of this Act.' 
 No. 102, in 
 schedule 5, page 72, line 42, after 'adopted' insert 'or approved'.
 No. 103, in 
schedule 5, page 72, line 47, at end insert— 
 '(1) This paragraph applies if, at the date of commencement of Part 1 a local planning authority have not prepared a unitary development plan in pursuance of section 12 of the principal Act. 
 (2) References in paragraphs 3 to 6 to proposals for the alteration or replacement of a plan must be construed as references to the plan.'
 No. 104, in 
schedule 5, page 73, line 11, leave out 
 'commencement of Part 2 of this Act' 
 and insert 'relevant date'.
 No. 105, in 
schedule 5, page 73, line 15, leave out 
 'beginning of the prescribed period' 
 and insert 
 'commencement of Part 2 of this Act'.
 No. 106, in 
schedule 5, page 73, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert— 
 '( ) The relevant date is whichever is the later of— 
 (a) the end of any period prescribed by regulations under section 53 of the principal Act for the making of objections to the proposals; 
 (b) the commencement of Part 2 of this Act.'
 No. 107, in 
schedule 5, page 73, line 41, at end insert— 
 '9A (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State thinks— 
 (a) that the conformity requirement is likely to give rise to inconsistency between the proposals and relevant policies or guidance, and 
 (b) that it is necessary or expedient to avoid such inconsistency. 
 (2) The Secretary of State may direct that to the extent specified in the direction the conformity requirement must be ignored. 
 (3) The Secretary of State must give reasons for the direction. 
 (4) The conformity requirement is— 
 (a) the requirement under section 36(4) of the principal Act that the local plan is to be in general conformity with the structure plan; 
 (b) the prohibition under section 43(3) of the principal Act on the adoption of proposals for a local plan or for its alteration or replacement which do not conform generally with the structure plan. 
 (5) Revelant policies and guidance are— 
 (a) national policies; 
 (b) advice contained in guidance; 
 (c) policies in the RSS.'
 No. 108, in 
schedule 5, page 73, line 42, after 'adopted' insert 'or approved'.
 No. 109, in 
schedule 5, page 73, line 42, leave out 'paragraph 8 or 9' and insert 'paragraphs 8 to 9A'
 No. 110, in 
schedule 5, page 73, line 47, at end insert— 
 '10A (1) This paragraph applies if, at the date of commencement of Part 1 a local planning authority have not prepared a local plan in pursuance of section 36 of the principal Act. 
 (2) References in paragraphs 7 to 10 to proposals for the alteration or replacement of a plan must be construed as references to the plan.'
 No. 111, in 
schedule 5, page 74, line 2, leave out '10' and insert '10A'.
 No. 112, in 
schedule 5, page 74, line 20, after 'adopted' insert 'or approved'.
 No. 34, in 
schedule 5, page 74, line 20, at end insert— 
 'Savings 
 12A (1) The repeal by this Act of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 13 to the principal Act does not affect anything which is required or permitted to be done for the purposes of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the principal Act during any time when a plan mentioned in any of those paragraphs continues to form part of the development plan by virtue of— 
 (a) paragraph 1 of this Schedule, or 
 (b) that paragraph as applied by any other provision of this Schedule. 
 (2) References to a plan mentioned in any of paragraphs 1 to 4 include any proposal for the alteration or replacement of the plan. 
 (3) The development plan is the development plan for the purposes of section 27 or 54 of the principal Act.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6 - Repeals

Amendments made: No. 69, in 
schedule 6, page 75, line 9, at end insert— 
 'Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c.70) 
 In Schedule 4, paragraph 2. 
 Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) 
 In section 142(2A), ''(subject to section 144(2))''. 
 In section 143(3A), ''(subject to section 144(2))''. 
 In section 144(2), ''the 1981 Act and''. 
 In Schedule 28, in paragraph 1, ''The 1981Act and'' and the words from ''and in paragraph 2'' to the end. 
 Highways Act 1980 (c.66) 
 Section 259. 
 Housing Act 1988 (c.50) 
 In Schedule 10, paragraph 2.'
 No. 70, in 
schedule 6, page 75, line 18, column 2, at end insert— 
 'Section 245(2) and (3).'
 No. 53, in 
schedule 6, page 75, line 23, in the second column at end insert— 
 'Section 293(4)Sections 294 to 297Section 298(1) and (2)Sections 299 to 301'.
 No. 35, in 
schedule 6, page 75, line 40, column 2, at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 13, paragraphs 1 to 4'.
 No. 54, in 
schedule 6, page 75, line 45, at end insert— 
 'Sections 83 and 84'.
 No. 55, in 
schedule 6, page 75, line 48, at end insert— 
 'Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 (c.10) 
 Section 31(1) and (2) 
 Section 32'.
 No. 71, in 
schedule 6, page 76, line 6, at end insert— 
 'Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (c.28) 
 In Schedule 20, paragraph 2.' 
No. 72, in 
schedule 6, page 76, line 7, at end insert— 
 Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c.45) 
 In Schedule 5, paragraph 1.' 
No. 336, in 
schedule 6, page 76, line 7, at end insert— 
 'Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.8) 
 Section 242(4) 
 Sections 243 to 245 
 Sections 247 to 250 
 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.9) 
 Sections 74 and 75 
 Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997 (c.10) 
 Sections 31(1) and (2) 
 Section 32'—[Keith Hill.]
 Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst.

Alan Hurst: There can be no points of order at this stage.Clause 1 Regional spatial strategy

Clause 1 - Regional spatial strategy

Amendment proposed: No. 73, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '( ) If to any extent a policy set out in the RSS conflicts with any other statement or information in the RSS the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - RPB: general functions

Amendment proposed: No. 74, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 30, at end insert— 
 '( ) must be in respect of such period of 12 months as is prescribed;'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 3, as amended, clause 4 and clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Survey of area: county councils

Amendment made: No. 1, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 34, after 'area' insert 
 'or the planning of its development'.—[Keith Hill.] 
Clause 13, as amended, and clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Local development documents

Amendment made: No. 80, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 39, at end insert— 
 '( ) If to any extent a policy set out in a local development document conflicts with any other statement or information in the document the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Statement of community involvement

Amendments made: No. 81, in 
clause 17, page 10, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(2A) For the purposes of sections 18(2) and 23 the statement of community involvement is not a local development document.'
 No. 82, in 
clause 17, page 10, line 20, leave out ', and' and insert— 
 '( ) But in section 19(5)(a)— 
 (a) the reference to section 18 must be construed as if it does not include a reference to subsection (2) of that section; 
 (b) the reference to section 23(1) must be ignored. 
 ( )' —[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Preparation of local development documents

Amendment made: No. 83, in 
clause 18, page 11, line 8, at end insert— 
 '(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision— 
 (a) as to any further documents which must be prepared by the authority in connection with the preparation of a local development document; 
 (b) as to the form and content of such documents.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Local development orders

Amendments made: No. 4, in 
clause 39, page 21, line 12, leave out 'Complusory' and insert 'Compulsory'.
 No. 36, in 
clause 39, page 21, line 25, leave out 
 'an order under this subsection' 
 and insert 'a development order'.
 No. 37, in 
clause 39, page 21, leave out lines 30 to 33.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Major infrastructure projects

Amendments made: No. 10, in 
clause 43, page 30, leave out lines 26 to 28.
 No. 11, in 
clause 43, page 31, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) The function of the lead inspector in pursuance of subsection (2)— 
 (a) may be exercised from time to time; 
 (b) includes making recommendations as to the number of additional inspectors required from time to time. 
 ( ) The power of the Secretary of State under subsection (3) to appoint an additional inspector includes power to revoke such an appointment.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 54 and 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Basic loss payment

Amendment proposed: No. 46, in 
clause 74, page 49, line 9, leave out from 'to' to end of line 11 and insert 
 'a pre-commencement acquisition of an interest in land. 
 (3) A pre-commencement acquisition of an interest in land is any of the following— 
 (a) acquisition by means of a compulsory purchase order if the order is made or made in draft before the commencement of this section; 
 (b) acquisition by means of an order made under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (c.42) (orders relating to certain transport works) if the application for the order was made to the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section; 
 (c) acquisition by means of an order under section 1 or 3 of that Act if the order is made in pursuance of section 7 of that Act (orders made without application) and the order is made in draft before the commencement of this section; 
 (d) acquisition by means of a power contained in an enactment (including a private or local Act) to acquire compulsorily specified land or a specified interest in land if the Bill providing for the power is introduced into Parliament before the commencement of this section.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Occupier's loss payment

Amendment proposed: No. 47, in 
clause 75, page 51, line 9, leave out from 'to' to end of line 11 and insert 
 'a pre-commencement acquisition of an interest in land. 
 (3) A pre-commencement acquisition of an interest in land is any of the following— 
 (a) acquisition by means of a compulsory purchase order if the order is made or made in draft before the commencement of this section; 
 (b) acquisition by means of an order made under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (c.42) (orders relating to certain transport works) if the application for the order was made to the Secretary of State before the commencement of this section; 
 (c) acquisition by means of an order under section 1 or 3 of that Act if the order is made in pursuance of section 7 of that Act (orders made without application) and the order is made in draft before the commencement of this section; 
 (d) acquisition by means of a power contained in an enactment (including a private or local Act) to acquire compulsorily 
specified land or a specified interest in land if the Bill providing for the power is introduced into Parliament before the commencement of this section.'—[Keith Hill.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 76 and 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 - Validity of strategies, plans and documents

Amendments proposed: No. 24, in 
clause 78, page 55, line 9, leave out 'local development' and insert 'development plan'.
 No. 25, in 
clause 78, page 56, line 1, leave out 'local development' and insert 'development plan'.
 No. 26, in 
clause 78, page 56, line 10, after 'adoption' insert ', publication'.
 No. 27, in 
clause 78, page 56, line 17, leave out 'local development' and insert 'development plan'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 78, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Local development orders: procedure

Amendments proposed: No. 42, in 
schedule 1, page 60, line 10, after 'prescribed', insert 'by a development order'.
 No. 43, in 
schedule 1, page 60, line 11, leave out 'Regulations under this paragraph' and insert 'A development order'.
 No. 44, in 
schedule 1, page 60, line 13, leave out 'an' and insert 'a local development'.
 No. 45, in 
schedule 1, page 60, line 18, leave out 
 '(e) the matters relating to the order' 
 and insert— 
 '(3) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision as to the matters relating to a local development order'.—[Keith Hill.] 
Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Title

Amendment made: No. 238, in 
title, line 2, leave out from 'planning;' to end and insert 
 'and the compulsory acquisition of land'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.